Guarding the Constitution in Silence: How Judges Experience Independence Under Executive Pressure

Abstract

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of constitutional law, especially in transitional democracies where political pressures challenge institutional integrity. While prior research has examined legal frameworks and formal safeguards, there is limited understanding of how constitutional judges personally experience and interpret independence in the face of executive influence. This study addresses that gap by investigating how judges perceive and navigate judicial independence under political pressure. Employing an interpretative phenomenological approach, the research focuses on the lived experiences of eight constitutional judges, collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Three key themes emerged: institutional isolation, moral struggle, and silent resistance. These findings suggest that judicial independence is not merely a legal principle, but a personal and context-driven process shaped by emotional and ethical considerations. The study contributes to constitutional scholarship by revealing the inner dimensions of judicial decision-making and offers new insights into how judges maintain autonomy in politically charged environments.