Introduction
The term constitution refers to a set of rules and regulations which are used to run a country. Each state or nation has its constitutional document which has been uniquely crafted to address and suit the situation of its residents. Even though constitutional documents differ from one country to the other, there is usually a common feature of all constitutions in the sense that is a legal document whose provisions cannot be overridden by any other law. Additionally, one of the dominant elements in most constitutions is the principle of democracy which refers to the government by the people for the people themselves. Democratic governments allow their citizens to choose their leadership through a free and fair electoral process. This paper attempts to examine whether constitution supports the modern democratic ideals or not.
Constitution and democracy
Constitution and democracy are very close applications in modern forms of political leadership and it is often difficult to discuss or embrace one without a clear mention of the other. In so doing, the term constitutional democracy becomes of great importance. However, it should be noted that not all governments with stable constitutional documents may end up supporting and applying democracy in their day-to-day leadership especially if the authentic principles of democracy are not put into use. Good governance requires that these principles be applied. From one of the principles, the wishes of the majority should be put into account. In other words, democracy is so much concerned about the power of the majority vote which should always take the centre stage in political governance (Mautner, p. 213). Moreover, this principle equally requires that the very wish of the majority be respected and upheld by the constitution.
Nevertheless, this principle is often not in agreement with the principles governing most constitutions. The modern constitutions are quite sensitive to the principles of democracy although its full and pragmatic application in day-to-day governance is still elusive so to speak. Besides, one of the constitutional principles has it that certain rights are entitled to individuals and other less dominant groups which may go against the will of the majority. It is therefore imperative to give a critical examination of these principles to establish whether the constitution upholds democracy in any way (Sunstein, p. 73).
To begin with, the term democracy which broadly embodies governance by the people is vividly differentiated from the outright rule by the minority or few individuals as in the case of totalitarian governance or dictatorship. In other words, democracy guarantees free and fair participation of all community members in an elective process which requires one to decide on which type of leadership to go for. In contrast, most nations that classify themselves as democratic have failed to meet these minimum standards as can be judged by significant disparities in terms of wealth accumulation and access to basic facilities like housing and infrastructure. These material differences directly transcend into political inequalities and thereby acting as an active ingredient towards bad and unpopular leadership void of democracy. Further, the democratic aspirations still embrace ordinary citizens as being politically equal due to the power to vote. The majority will is inherent in theories surrounding democracy. It is a common practice that those who keenly defend democracy may simultaneously limit the horizons of majority rule. The baseline here is the ability of the citizens to have equal power in making decisions. It is against this backdrop that the will of the majority will always prevail (Mautner, p. 163). Democratic ideals rely on the nod of the majority and which may sometimes go against the principles of applied constitutions. To this end, political decisions are left to the control of democracy.
What about constitutional ideals? Do the pieces of legislation in a constitutional document supportive of the will of the majority? This inquiry may not have a definite answer bearing in mind that there are often associated constraints in the constitutional documents regarding the will of the majority. The main constraint that tends to limit the harmony between democracy and constitutionalism is the presence of underlying latent legislation which attempts to be restrictive to the principles of democracy. In any case, those who draft constitutions are usually politically heavyweights with vested interests in the entire legal document. The succinct review of both the constitution and democracy reveals a rather unpalatable match which primarily results from the obvious suspicion created between the two by the rule of the few or dictatorship. This is the reason why some governments have been unable to meet the democratic sanctity of their citizens. The zeal to remain in political leadership without the approval of the majority rule is a real catalyst that inhibits the extent to which the constitution would support democracy (Banting & Simeon, p. 159).
Moreover, a critical analysis of constitutionalism in its real context allays fears which are associated with the impacts of the majority power (Sunstein, p. 126). Some governments interpret majoritarian rule and instinct as pathways to revolutions that may supersede constitutional provisions. In essence, a constitution will often demarcate clear borders between individualistic freedom and the limits of majority rule. In so doing, a constitution does not allow certain practices and pursuits of democracy beyond certain borders. Consequently, the end product of this myriad of limitations is the crafted ceiling beyond which democracy cannot prevail. In simple terms, any piece of constitutional document will always be endowed with clauses that demean or alienate certain practices of the majority rule which the political leadership may perceive as counterproductive. The drafting of such clauses is usually tagged on the argument that protection of legitimate human rights is paramount in the constitution. In any case, the majoritarian rule will often be considered against the law in the event it overruns the privacy of individuals who are protected and governed by the constitution (Banting & Simeon, p. 159). Any form of interference arising from majority power is not acceptable and especially if such interruptions are deemed unconstitutional. This is largely enshrined in the principles within any given constitution which underscores the protection of individuals’ autonomy.
Conclusion
In summing up this argument, it is imperative to note that the extent to which the constitution supports modern democracy is limited in the application concerning the type and nature of governance concerned. For instance, whereas democracy upholds the rule of the majority, totalitarian regimes are void of any democratic ideals. In such cases, constitutional documents are not supportive of democracy at all. Further, the practice of democracy may not go beyond certain borders especially when they are deemed unconstitutional even in elaborate democratic regimes. Usually, the very constitutions have protective clauses which limit certain express rights of democracy. Lastly, whether a constitution will support the ideals of democracy or not in contemporary governance is largely dependant on the political goodwill of the ruling class. They may deter the due process of a free and fair process of democratic practices.
Works Cited
- Banting, G. Keith and Simeon Richard. And no one cheered: federalism, democracy, and the Constitution Act. Ontario: Methuen Publications, 1983. Print.
- Mautner, Noah Michael. A Constitution of direct democracy (2nd ed.). Christchurch: Legacy Books Ltd, 2000. Print.
- Sunstein, R. Cass. Designing democracy: what constitutions do. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.Print.