Safeguards democracy

The argument

This argument holds that unamendability is what keeps a democracy democratic, and it begins from a structural vulnerability rather than from any particular constitution. Democracy, on this account, is its own greatest threat. The unfettered freedom of the electorate to delegate power to any individual or political party means there is no rule excluding from office someone who intends to dismantle the system that elected them. Inevitably, on an infinite timeline, the electorate will eventually bestow power on someone, or a party, that seeks to undo it — not because voters are foolish, but because a process with no such exclusion will, given enough iterations, produce that outcome at least once. The consequence of an entirely amendable constitution is then immediate. Without unamendable provisions, such a leader could theoretically turn a fully functioning democracy into a dictatorship overnight, using the constitution's own amendment procedure to remove the constraints on their power. Every safeguard would be available for repeal by whoever had just won, which means each safeguard lasts only as long as the goodwill of the government it is meant to restrain. Unamendability closes that route. Provisions placed beyond amendment function as a safeguard against the destruction of democracy, because they cannot be removed by an electoral majority however large, and they prevent the threat of an authoritarian or totalitarian takeover being carried out through lawful means. The apparent paradox is resolved by the argument's own logic: a restriction on what the people may change is what preserves their ability to keep choosing. Because unamendable provisions protect democracy from its own self-destruction, this argument holds that an unamendable constitution is democratic rather than undemocratic.

Context

Imagine a scenario where a politician with dictatorial aspirations is voted into office by the majority of the popular vote. Once in office, the leader acts on their dictatorial urges, dismantling the democratic system and the institutions designed to protect it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Unamendability doesn’t only protect democracy, it also protects outdated principles. The American Constitution protected slavery. In other parts of the globe, unamendable constitutions have protected the oppression of minorities. These unamendable constitutional elements foster division and lead to division in society and human rights abuses. Under a fully democratic political system, the electorate needs to have the ability to remove these abhorrent elements from their constitution. If that means their democratic principles are left slightly more exposed, then so be it; for it is only by making every element of the constitution amendable that democracy can be fully guaranteed. The claim that unamendability protects democracy better than an amendable constitution is also highly dubious. If the majority of the electorate demands constitutional change but the political and legal system offers no avenue for it, the population is far more likely to take up arms and pursue constitutional change through violent means. Therefore, rather than protecting democracy, constitutional unamendability hastens its downfall in highly engaged, politicized societies.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P4] An unamendable constitution offers no outlet for constitutional change. This increases the likelihood of civil unrest and violence. Therefore, an unamendable constitution does not protect democratic processes better than an amendable one.