When Law Becomes a Shield: The Quiet Politics of Blame Avoidance
We’re often told that the law stands as the final word on justice. In theory, it’s supposed to deliver fairness, draw clear lines of responsibility, and offer pathways to redress when power is abused. But anyone who has watched how the law actually operates in political and bureaucratic arenas knows that this idealized version of legality is often a far cry from reality. Behind the façade of neutrality, legal tools are frequently designed to do something quite different: they help powerful actors sidestep responsibility, obscure the origins of harm, and create a polished surface of procedural legitimacy that repels deeper scrutiny.
This isn’t simply a matter of misuse or loopholes. The problem runs deeper than that. Legal systems, far from being passive arbiters, can be actively structured to serve as instruments of strategic irresponsibility. The result is a kind of legal camouflage—rules that appear to enforce accountability but in fact enable its evasion. In this piece, I want to unpack how this happens. By applying a problematization lens, we can begin to ask harder questions: not just whether an action is legal, but how law itself is being shaped to deflect blame, suppress dissent, and protect those in power…
Enjoying the read? Subscribe to my Substack to get full access to this article and future posts delivered straight to your inbox. Stay informed, stay curious.