On the question of to what extent, can a democratic, constitutional government defend the state without transforming itself into an authoritarian regime the main argument is that, democratic governments in such situation will implement laws that will maintain democracy and they will uphold international humanitarian laws Hall. In this regard, the main research question adopts the comparative approach.

The research findings shows that if prior to the war or national crisis the state was already democratically governed then the democratic, constitutional government will defend the state without transforming itself into an authoritarian regime.

Patrick et al. and Hall et al. support this argument by citing the 2011 England riots whereby the democratic government of the United Kingdom was able to quell the national crisis without  adopting authoritarian tactics as there was only five deaths and sixteen injuries reported as a result of the riots. However, in the case of Syria, which had an authoritarian government prior to the civil war, Radwan and Raymond  note that so far the Syrian government as well as the rebels have engaged in committing atrocities that include killing of innocent Syrians, protesters and bystanders.

From the comparison of the UK and Syrian cases, the substantial fact is that the constitution or rule of law does not apply in times of war and national crisis in countries where the regime is already practicing authoritative governing, as it was in Syria where the judiciary system has also been impaired Nikolaos. On the other hand, democratic states such as the UK maintain the rule of law even in times of war or national crisis where the judiciary is still effective at such times Meikle and Rogers.