Ackerman Wins Tang Prize in Rule of Law, Exploring How People Become Constitutional Subjects [Interview]

(Central News Agency, reporter Lin Honghan, New Haven, June 18) Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law at Yale University, has long researched democratic constitutionalism, popular sovereignty, and the crisis of the rule of law. His core concern is how constitutional authority derives from the people and how to maintain democratic legitimacy during major constitutional crises and institutional changes.

Bruce Ackerman, 82, is the recipient of the 7th Tang Prize in Rule of Law for 2026. In his research room at Yale Law School, filled with historical atmosphere, he was interviewed by CNA. The room, filled with books and with views of red brick buildings through the windows, reflects the law school's long tradition of participating in American constitutional and democratic debates.

One of Ackerman's most representative works is the "We the People" series. In this series, he reinterprets the development of the American constitution, arguing that the constitution is not kept alive solely by courts, statutes, or formal amendments. Instead, at critical historical moments, the people re-legitimize the constitutional order through political mobilization, elections, and public discussion.

His question is: sometimes the constitution's text is not formally rewritten, yet the political order has profoundly changed due to people's participation and institutional interaction. This is also the core of his exploration of "popular sovereignty," where people are not just voters who cast ballots periodically, but should also become the true subjects of the democratic order at critical constitutional junctures.

One of Ackerman's most central arguments is that the constitution is not just words on paper. The rule of law is also not just courts and statutes, but a system that allows people to participate in public decision-making at critical moments and ensures that power is constrained.

Using the current American political scene as an example, he warns of the excessive concentration of executive power. Ackerman believes that when a president or executive leader bypasses Congress and public discussion to push major decisions through personal will, the rule of law is hollowed out. Major decisions in a democratic society must undergo scrutiny through institutional processes and public deliberation.

He has advocated for "Deliberation Day" for many years. Ackerman argues for designating a national public holiday before major elections, allowing citizens to watch policy explanations from candidates, then discuss in groups, ask questions, and receive responses from party representatives. The government would also provide participation stipends so that ordinary people do not have to miss out due to work or income pressures.

In his view, democracy does not end after voting. Democracy requires people to truly understand their choices, and it requires parties and candidates to face citizens' questions. Only by allowing people to re-enter public discussion can democracy be more than just a formality.

When Ackerman talks about the rule of law, he does not stop at courts, constitutions, or institutional design. He repeatedly mentioned the concept of "shame" during the interview, believing that the crisis of democracy also stems from many people feeling looked down upon by society. He said that if workers, farmers, low-wage workers, the elderly, or minority groups feel for a long time that their lives and dignity are not recognized, dangerous cracks will appear in democratic politics.

He specifically mentioned the challenges brought by technology. When artificial intelligence and automation replace human labor, a middle-aged worker might suddenly lose their job. Ackerman believes the problem is not just unemployment, but that society sends a message to certain groups that "you are no longer important." If this sense of shame has nowhere to go, it can transform into anger and become fodder for populist politics.

In Ackerman's eyes, the rule of law not only limits government power but must also uphold human dignity. Increased education levels do not guarantee that democracy will mature naturally; if institutions cannot make people from different circumstances feel respected and able to participate in public life, democracy may become a mere formality, losing the social foundation that supports it.

When Ackerman discussed Taiwan, he approached it from the perspective of the global democratic order and the competition between great powers. He pointed out that the international order led by the United States after World War II is loosening, and Taiwan cannot bet its security and democratic future solely on the United States. Small democratic countries need to connect more proactively with surrounding democratic forces and consider how to support each other in the new international landscape.

Ackerman mentioned the importance of democratic forces in Asia such as Japan and India. For him, the continuation of Taiwan's democracy is not just Taiwan's own affair, but also a test of whether democratic countries in Asia can form a more stable cooperative network amidst great power competition. (Editor: Tian Ruihua Tian) 1150618)