The constitutions of yesterday, today and tomorrow
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 29/09/2024
Share:
I must say that it has been a hard task to prepare this dissertation, because the subject is still “complicated.” First of all, it forced me to “define the biblical world,” finding myself with the suggestion to take into account humanity in its moral condition. But also, in relation to the human circumstances where one is born or lives. The complications continued when reading that in Greece the world is “a system of things.” It is read that the ratio of this appreciation is that the analysis of the texts of the past, today and the future, must be accompanied by “the people” who led them, so that those alleged laws must have been different and in some cases even contradictory. The readings led us to the conclusion that we had arbitrated an acceptable methodology. So I think we are on the right track.
Dear Professor Gerard Petit, allow me to tell you that it was quite difficult for us to identify a distinguished expert on the subject. We assumed that you were the ideal one, since you are a professor at prestigious universities, a distinguished researcher and have written a dozen works. We are therefore convinced that you would enlighten us on the subject of constitutions and their problems, which are almost innumerable. And very particularly on what their fate has been. But also, what if we are not faced with the opportunity to decree their death and by what mechanism we should replace them. The organizers of this colloquium are convinced, but also uneasy, about the final destiny of the “law of laws.” Or perhaps it will be possible to find out in time about the constitutions of tomorrow, if we decide to prolong their life. Please tell us your name, the academic demands. But the speaker says that he will not give it to you. I'll do my best! is the teacher's response in acceptable Spanish, but with a French accent.
The academic, dressed in Parisian style, states that the first qualification is that “the constitution” is a law. Of course, sui generis, on the one hand because it is superior to the others, which are promulgated to execute the precepts of the former. The second appreciation is that the latter must be related to the spirit, purpose and reason of the first, called, for that and other reasons, “Law of Laws”. It is a methodology, therefore, that leads to “the approval of the rules to which we must conform and without exceptions in relation to our rights and duties. But, likewise, in the event that we propose to establish it and even replace it, if it were the case, extreme, of course, that the peoples were inclined to a different modality. Therefore, we could affirm, without fear of being wrong, that we decree its coming into the world, but also its death, if it were the case. “The people are the ones who command,” an expression, in principle, of Emiliano Zapata, better known as “Pancho Villa,” in the so-called “Mexican Revolution (1910-1920).” A long period of instability, typical of South American countries, says the distinguished professor, whose constitutional problems have been difficult to resolve. In my opinion, it is more scientific to say “the people are sovereign to decide their destiny. It allows them to govern themselves freely.” And so, they form a sovereign state that dictates its own constitution. Please write down my statement, which will be useful to you, the academic asks the audience with airs and graces.
As regards the generation of normative precepts, dear friends, we must act, as can be inferred from the above, in accordance with the imperative pattern, which consists of the duty to maintain conformity with the superior text, the way for the purpose of the superior norms to be achieved. Not so in the opposite case, characterized, as we will explain in detail later, by "a massive proliferation of rules" and without distinguishing their hierarchy. But, in addition, disordered. And hypothetically derived, but with selfish interests, from the spirit and purpose of the constitutional texts. The methodology constitutes a gross transgression of the Magna Cartas. Will we do well? It is the teacher's question to the audience, but nobody answers.
The Royal Spanish Academy, continues the pedagogue, relatively disenchanted with the participants, takes us by the hand to the “New World”, with assessments, of course not uniform: 1) First world, part of the land where the American continent is located, 2. Third world, countries less developed economically and socially. If, as a town judge would say, we were to stretch the rules of “hermeneutics”, it would not be an attack to affirm that, locating ourselves in America, “the first world” is the USA and “the third” is the rest of the continent. For the sake of frankness, other nations compete in the first group. The UN mentions Switzerland, Norway and Iceland and other sources, Singapore, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Finland. The readings postulate that “constitutions are decisive for democracy, the rule of law, human rights and governance. However, in some cases, more than we could imagine, in countries with weak democracies and much more in those that do not exist, the opposite occurs, since the Magna Carta, just as laws are transgressed, “civility” is replaced by “incivility”. Let us also keep in mind, as we read, that the constitutional precepts are fundamental for democracy, so that “the transitions from one “Law of laws” to another, constitute “social and political processes”. The assertion must be accompanied by the hope, not generated in all cases, of reaching good collective dividends. Because, there is more than we imagine, the taking advantage of the opportunity by those willing to strengthen their own interests. And what is not less serious is that it may be “the godarria”, that is, goths and conservatives or the fetish of “radical left-wing populism”, which in both cases usually end in dictatorships and even fascism. Their hypothetical flags, as it is written, “progress, internationalism and defense of the weakest”. The professor looks at the attendees mischievously, a manifestation that they believe he is referring to their own countries. The annoyance that is generated is obvious.
Could we speak, Professor, of “constitutional selfishness”, asks Kevin Zambrano, but the lecturer plays dumb and does not answer. He goes on to say that, having taught in Spain for almost a decade, allow me to resort to the expression “cat for hare” used by peninsulars when they find out that “they have been switched”, which he corroborates by going to the list of attendees, confirming that there are from Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Congo, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Haiti. But, additionally, the leadership of the group is dual, since it is coordinated by Sara Ibrahim, from Cairo and Kevin Zambrano, from Quito, both teachers of Philosophy of Law, the first in the area of “semiology”, but concerning “social damages, and the other in “theology”. The Cairo-based scientist obtained a PhD from Al-Azhar University, and her thesis, “The Determining Influence of Religion on Political Regimes,” was awarded the “Magna Cum Laude” and subsequently published. Rather than being disappointed, the French professor believes that he is being offered an excellent opportunity for a “masterly lecture.”
Although he is not sure if they are paying attention, he loudly asks them to copy the comment he dictates with the necessary pause: “Poor countries cause institutional weakness, corruption, poor infrastructure and lack of human capital.” Did they copy correctly? He asks, after a pause. “Of course,” is the unanimous response, but only from Sara Ibrahim and Kevin Zambrano. The rest remain silent. But the professor, with disenchanted grimaces, adds that we must investigate what is relevant to expansion, enlargement and escalation, rather than the serious establishment of useful precepts for serious political regimes, which in “legal philosophy” has been described for several decades as “normative inflation,” in whose source “demagogy” plays a role, which is all too common in a considerable part of humanity, but particularly in third world countries, where I guess most of you come from. I dare to tell you, dear friends, that we have scientifically identified two defining factors of “incivility,” the source of which, as we read, is “individualism.” The academic is so immersed in his analysis that he does not pay attention to the attendees who have raised their hands in the desire to speak. The academic feels disenchanted and therefore eager to end the conference.
At the beginning of the final part of the lecture, Professor Petit shows the audience the essays “Strengthening the Security Barriers of Constitutional Democracy” and “Constitutional Construction and the Rule of Law” by researchers from “International IDEA.” Also, The Future of the Constitution, by Ignacio Torres Mudo. These are, without a doubt, serious investigations, in which you will find conclusive explanations. But I doubt if they are at the level of the book that I have just sent to the printer for publication, with the title “Antagonistic Constitutionalism,” and I am committed to sending a copy to each of you, but through Sara Ibrahim and Kevin Zambrano, who, given their preparation, I do not doubt have taken advantage of the guidelines with which I have fed this magnanimous lecture. In its pages you will find analysis regarding “traditional institutions and their benefits,” asking myself: To what extent do churches and religions contribute enough to constitutional stability? But I also wander through concerns concerning “critical theories” that question the existing social order, the relationships between constitutional law and constitutional reality, constitutionalism and liberalism, political representation, the division of powers and presidentialism.
The speaker hopes to be applauded by the audience and that the conference will end in peace. But to his surprise, the anarchy leads to a real uproar, as some of the audience are inflamed by the academic's irony throughout his presentation. "The third world, the third world, the third world," Petit Gerard is heard saying, albeit in a "soto voce" tone.
Comments welcome.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».