There is no alternative

The argument

The question is said to be pointless because the situation it describes leaves nothing to decide. If a state has a written constitution that does not allow for amendments or a replacement, then whether that arrangement is undemocratic has no bearing on what anyone can do about it. There is no choice but to find a way to make democracy work without amending the constitution, because the only other route is closed by the document itself. The apparent exception is considered and rejected. The government could choose to ignore the stipulation that the constitution cannot be amended, simply proceeding as though the restriction were not there. But the cost of doing so is not confined to that restriction being set aside. A constitution binds because its provisions hold even when they are inconvenient, and a government that disregards one provision on the grounds that it dislikes the result has demonstrated that provisions can be disregarded. That demonstration cannot be contained: it would undermine any future constitution and open a Pandora's box where future governments may choose to ignore fragments of the constitution at will, selecting which parts bind them according to what they want at the time. So the route that appears to escape the problem destroys the thing it was meant to rescue. A government that amends an unamendable constitution has not made the system more democratic; it has established that the written settlement constrains no one, which removes the protection every future majority would otherwise have relied on. With amendment forbidden and defiance self-defeating, democracy has to be made to work within the document as it stands. Because there is no alternative, on this view the question is a pointless one.

Context

If a state already has a constitution that cannot be replaced or amended, there is no alternative.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A debate’s value is not in its application. We can debate questions like the existence of fate, the mind-body debate, and the veracity of rationalism which have no bearing or application on our lives or government systems but hold value as an intellectual exercise. Additionally, the statement is factually incorrect. There is an alternative. As long as the constituents have the ability to write a new constitution, there is an alternative course of action within democratic channels. The electorate can provide the country with a legitimate government willing to replace the constitution with a new constitution that is amendable through the appropriate democratic processes.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] There are avenues for constitutional change, even under unamendable constitutions. [Rejecting P2] Debates purely for theoretical and abstract purposes still have intellectual importance.