Personalised attacks, institutional trust, and judicial independence: how consolidated democracies respond and what Romania can learn

Abstract

This article examines how personalised ad hominem attacks on magistrates undermine institutional trust and, cumulatively, weaken judicial independence. Focusing on Romania’s public sphere, it argues that delegitimation through personal vilification shifts contestation away from legal reasoning and procedure toward alleged motives, integrity, or private conduct, increasing perceived politicisation and creating chilling effects on professional decision-making. The study distinguishes legitimate criticism from delegitimation by tracing sustained personalisation, insinuation, decontextualisation, coordinated amplification, and cues of intimidation or informal sanctioning. Using comparative institutional analysis and process tracing, it surveys how consolidated democracies respond when judges and prosecutors are targeted, emphasising layered approaches that preserve free debate while limiting coercive reputational pressure. These include stronger court communication and transparency, professional standards for political and media conduct, targeted protections against harassment and threats, and credible accountability mechanisms that reduce the plausibility of smear narratives. The article concludes with lessons for Romania.