Deference

Deference is an important institutional practice in democracies with a separation of powers. In all societies, democratic or not, it is also an important social practice. In both contexts deference can be misused. This blog examines the use and misuse of deference.

Institutional deference and the separation of powers
 
The separation of powers in modern government between executives, legislatures, the judiciary and a branch of expert agencies, provides an overall institutional structure consistent with democratic values together with the resilience to handle shocks and unexpected change. The separation between branches is not intended to be complete. The links between them are intended to provide for mutual checks in the way they exercise their powers.
 
In addition to any formal links between the different branches of government, relationships also depend on practice and convention. The different branches are expected to act with self-restraint and not test too far the boundaries of what they can do. They are also expected to show deference in the sense of respecting the powers of other branches.
 
Deference in the context of democratic practice thus includes such practices as presidencies showing respect for the powers of legislatures, juridical authority showing respect for the other branches and expert agencies recognising the limits of the powers that have been delegated to them by legislatures. 
 
Deference as an institutional practice provides a way of recognising that the boundaries of what belongs to the law and what belongs to politics and what belongs to expert judgement and what belongs to political judgement can never be rigidly or precisely defined. It is about recognising the role of practice in setting boundaries and the values that should inform that practice. President Trump is criticised because he neither respects the practice nor recognises the democratic values that underlie the practice.
 
Deference as a social practice
 
As a social practice deference can also simply involve respect for some different and relevant role, capability, experience or knowledge of another person or group. For example, we may defer to the knowledge of a health professional. 
 
At the same time, deference tends to be seen as a conservative value associated with respect for the status quo and traditional roles. This leads to an unhealthy relationship with social distinctions such as class or wealth where capability and knowledge meriting deference is not necessarily present. In the UK, the spoken accent remains a pernicious marker of education and class and acts as a false trigger for deference.
 
Deference can also be contrasted with other less conservative social values. Victorian England embraced the idea of ‘self-improvement’. Adam Smith saw ‘esteem’ as a driving motivator for individual advancement. He attributed the striving for wealth in the market to the desire for esteem. In today’s world the value attached to entrepreneurship is seen as lacking in Europe as compared to the US and a reason why Europe lags in innovation and start-ups. A more entrepreneurial Europe might be a less deferential one.
 
The misuse of deference
 
In the separation of powers
 
Deference is misplaced in political structures when for example legislatures do not question acts of the executive that require scrutiny, for example over the use of Presidential war powers in the US. While concern about presidential or executive overreach is a traditional as well as current concern, it has also been joined in recent times by concern about judicial over-reach. Propelled in part by human rights law, the judiciary is alleged to have encroached into areas of distributional politics that traditionally belongs to the elected legislative and executive branches.
 
In the US the role of deference is also currently in question over the role of expert agencies. They operate under the authority of the powers delegated to them by Congress but at the same time they possess their own epistemic authority which guides them in the interpretation of those powers. Congress and the judiciary have tended to defer to them and give them considerable latitude in the exercise of their epistemic authority. 
 
In the recent 2025 Loper Bright case the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the judiciary has the authority to review the scope and meaning of the legislation delegating powers thus potentially limiting the latitude open to expert bodies in the way they interpret powers delegated to them. Judicial reasoning thus has been reasserted alongside epistemic reasoning in order to determine actions of agencies that might be declared beyond their powers.
 
It remains to be seen how far the judiciary will reassert its role of review. Courts lack the expert knowledge of agencies and they will need to respect this division of authority. There is now a greater responsibility passed back to legislatures to be clear about what powers they are delegating and how they intend that they be used.
 
The rule of law
 
Deference as a form of social authority is misused in two main instances. The first is when it is used to support a political reward system, and secondly when it stands in the way of the rule of law principle that everyone is equal in front of the law. 
 
Deference is exploited in politics when status is conferred through an honours system where honours reflect political connections rather than merit or capability. In the UK membership of the House of Lords can serve this purpose. It provides a fulcrum for a supply chain of a self-perpetuating elite. Such elitism has in turn contributed to the long list of public sector failures in modern British government at the nexus of politics, regulation and the law – from the Post Office mismanagement scandal to the HS2 waste of infrastructure funding.
 
A misplaced deference in relation to the rule of law is illustrated not only in the case of the PO disaster, where it seems the law has not been properly applied and where accountability in front of the law remains incomplete, but also by two further examples in the UK. 
 
In the UK it is clear that the law has been slow to be applied to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in part because of a misplaced deference to his social standing and family position. Hereditary authority has no place in the contemporary world and the deference shown brings the law into disrepute. It further undermines the concept of hereditary authority itself. Arguably a similar misplaced deference has been shown in the case of Peter Mandelson, former minister, former member of the House of Lords, and ambassador to the US. His position over many years among the rich, politically powerful and well-connected has possibly shielded him from the law that applies to others.
 
Conclusion
 
The practice of deference plays an important and positive role in the structures of democratic politics. It recognises that the different fields of authority can never be precisely defined and that constant fighting over fields of authority would be damaging to the different branches and to the authority of the system of government as a whole. At the same time deference can be carried too far. The misuse of executive power is both a traditional and a current concern. Overreach by the judicial branch is a more recent concern as is concern about overreach by unelected expert agencies. 
 
Deference as a social practice can also play a positive role in social relationships in recognising areas of specialised skill, ability and experience. However, it is open to misuse when it is used to buttress a political rewards system and more importantly to undermine the fundamental principle that everyone is equal in front of the law.