How war strengthens the executive branch and weakens democracy

During times of extreme geopolitical tension, and typically international conflict, governments consolidate power to increase government efficiency to maximize wartime efforts. This threatens fundamental aspects of democratic health and can lead to the infringement of ital checks and balances. Claims of national security can allow for things like suppression of free speech, violations of civil liberties for targeted nationalities, and expansions of surveillance power. This is dangerous because temporary emergency powers can become permanent or normalized leading to the gradual erosion of democratic norms. 

One example of wartime power expansion was post-9/11 security policy during the War on Terror. Post-9/11 legislation, such as the Patriot Act (2001), allowed law enforcement agencies to infringe upon privacy rights. The Patriot Act (2001) was an anti-terrorist effort that legalized wiretapping, unprotected searches, e-mail monitoring, the confiscation of private property, and the ability to issue a warrant without sufficient evidence (Doyle, 2022). In reference to the Patriot Act and other similar legislation, Alison Parker and Jamie Fellner, two senior researchers who specialize in human rights, claim that “U.S. anti-terrorism policies not only contradict principles woven into the country’s political and legal structure, they also contradict international human rights principles” (Parker & Fellner, 2004, para. 3). These changes were not temporary. Despite efforts to revert the mass surveillance that came with the War on Terror, these pratices still occur and allow the government to monitor the people. Additionally, as a result of 9/11, the United States government rapidly expanded the executive branch, as they created new organizations, like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and significantly altered existing departments, like the Department of Defense (DoD). Since the DHS’s creation in 2002, it has been in charge of all federal counter-terrorist measures, border control, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and more (Samuels, 2018). Not only were new departments created, but post-9/11 legislation significantly altered previously existing ones. As a result of 9/11, the US engaged in the War on Terror, a conflict fought against terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. Neta Crawford, an international relations professor from Oxford, explains that the counterterrorist wars in the Middle East created a vast budgetary expansion for the United States. According to data compiled by Tyler Allen (2013), titled “Federal Defense Spending: 2001-2010 ($ Billions)”,  the USA's annual defense spending has gone from $304.7 billion in 2001 to $693.59 in 2010. This means that in a short decade, the US Defense Budget increased by 128%. On top of this, in these years, discretionary spending proportionally skyrocketed. This expansion illustrates how crises can shift the balance of power towards the executive branch, reducing legislative and judicial oversight, which are essential components of democratic accountability. 

Another example of wartime infringement was the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. According to the National WWII museum, “Virutally all Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes and property and live in camps for most of the war” (n.d, para. 1). This demonstrated a clear violation of civil liberties as Japanese Americans were removed from their home without trial, without evidence, and were stripped of their protection under the law. Additionally, this policy targeted Americans solely on the basis of race and nationality which is in violation of the basic governing principles of American democracy. This decision also reflects how executie power drastically expands during wartime. Executive overreach is already a dangerous issue, but when the government has clear authority to expand security measures, the rights of citizens become much weaker. It is even more important to consider that the judicial branch actually approved of this executive expansion. In Korematsu vs. The United States the Supreme Court ruled that internment was a legal and necessary measure. The decision to uphold internment demonstrates how even judicial institutions may defer to executive authority during wartime, further weakening the system of checks and balances. 

Some argue that strong executive leadership is necessary in crises because democratic systems that rely on deliberation and agreement may respond too slowly. War can also strengthen national identity leading to a more healthy democracy. Critics would say that democracies cannot function efficiently in times of crisis due to internal disagreement. In these cases rapid response is necessary. While rapid response is necessary, history shows that these expansions often outlast the crises that justified them, leading to a normalization of reduced civil liberties and weakned institutional checks. 

In conclusion, both the post-9/11 security expansion and the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII demonstrate a recurring pattern of executive expansion in which fear is used to slowly deconstruct democratic principles.