Abstract Autocratic policy tools are often associated with democratic backsliding and the erosion of checks and balances. Yet their use is not confined to illiberal regimes. This article examines whether, and in what sense, royal decree-laws in Spain can be understood as autocratic policy tools within a consolidated democracy. Although constitutionally designed for situations of extraordinary and urgent necessity, royal decree-laws temporarily concentrate law-making authority in the executive and limit or compress ordinary parliamentary deliberation, thereby reshaping the institutional balance of powers. Analysing their deployment in migration governance across three policy domains: healthcare access, labour protections for domestic workers, and unaccompanied minor, the article shows that these instruments are not only crisis-driven but can also be used strategically in politically constrained environments. Moreover, their use does not map neatly onto restrictive policy outcomes: royal decree-laws have been employed both to curtail and to expand migrant rights, and in some instances have not been used despite objective crisis conditions. The findings complicate assumptions that equate autocratic tools with illiberal content and instead highlight their procedural logic and ambivalent role within democratic systems. By reassessing the concept through the Spanish experience, the article contributes to debates on executive power, accountability, and migration governance in contemporary democracies.
Bermejo et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: