- Position1 of 3›
- Yes, an unamendable constitution is undemocratic
When the electorate cannot achieve constitutional reform through democratic means, they are more likely to pursue violent means of political change.
The argument
Proponents of this view start from a question about where the pressure for constitutional change goes once the lawful channel for it has been sealed. An unamendable constitution, on this account, does not extinguish the majority's desire to alter the founding text; it removes only the orderly route by which that desire can be satisfied. Where a majority wants the constitution amended and is persistently confronted by a judicial system committed to upholding the original text, one that strikes down constitutional amendments as they are made, the demand for change does not dissipate. It accumulates behind a barrier that, by design, cannot be moved. The argument then turns on what follows from that blockage. A political system earns consent in part by offering a procedure through which a settled majority can eventually get its way: elections, legislation and, at the constitutional level, amendment. Close the last of these and the people's voice is no longer heard on precisely the questions that matter most, since the text that constrains every ordinary law is itself placed beyond reach. With no recourse to secure change through political means, proponents argue, the population is eventually guaranteed to pursue it through violent means. Revolution becomes unavoidable on this view not because the population is unusually rebellious, but because every peaceful alternative has been foreclosed in advance. The conclusion is offered as an irony. Unamendability is ordinarily defended as a device for stability and for protecting democracy against transient majorities. Proponents contend that it delivers the opposite: by denying the people any lawful authorship over their own fundamental law, it provides the precise conditions for democracy's undoing and for society's descent into political violence. A constitution that cannot be changed by those it governs is therefore undemocratic in both of the ways that matter, in the authority it withholds and in the instability it breeds.
Context
The amendment procedure is designed to provide sufficient flexibility within the democratic system so as to prevent violence, upheaval and political revolution. Removing the amendment procedure increases the chance of forcible political change and the margin for violence.
Premises
Counter-arguments
In strong democracies, unamendability doesn’t necessarily contribute to instability. Because voters retain primary constituent rights, they are able to draft a new constitution even if they cannot amend a previously written constitution. By articulating this to voters and ensuring the electorate feels empowered to force change when the society’s values shift and a previous constitution is no longer appropriate for expressing those values, revolution and violence can be easily averted.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] Providing it is articulated to the public that a new constitution can be drawn up, their complaints can be adequately heard.