Create a Perfect Constitution

[#hamler]

A constitution is a set of rules for government. Often a written document, it establishes principles of an area or group of people. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures powers and duties, of a government. By limiting the government's own reach, most constitutions guarantee certain rights to the people.

Now, this thread is a bit different from the threads we usually have in the Cigar Lounge. In this thread, I would like you to come up with ideas on how to create a nearly perfect constitution for some imgainary country or whatever.

For example: focus on the main stuff. Do you think your country would be better off a dictatorship or a democracy? Or even a Communist country? Focus on the three main parts of a constitution: Citizen Rights, Citizen Responsibility, law enforcement.

I think this thread will be quite interesting. Feel free to disagree with other's policies and and whatnot. Basically, create what you believe would be a nearly perfect constitution for a made up country. Have fun.

 

[Gelgarin]

Written constitutions are an error. No nation should have one. They do not protect against social regression and frequently stand as a barrier to development.

No country has ever been protected from a descent into despoticism by the existence of a constitution. Take Russia as an example and look at the ease with which Putin has been able to change and circumnavigate the constitution in order to secure his own power. Examples are for more rife when we look at the developing democracies. Once any nation descends to a point where the social order is threatened a written document is going to provide no protection.

In contrast, in more stable societies such as the United States , a written constitution actually hurts the nation more than it helps. Society needs to evolve over time, and a written document prevents this from happening.

To offer a random example, every ten years in the US there is a national census where everyone is counted. There are two ways of counting people, a head count and by using sampling data. Using sampling data is universally proven to be significantly quicker, significantly cheaper and significantly more accurate with absolutely no disadvantage. Unfortunately it is technically unconstitutional (dictated by the same paragraph that values a Negro as three fifths of a person). In the US everyone has had to go through a fucking war in order to be able to do something that common sense dictates should have been done from the beginning.

Written constitutions don't stay relevant. Somebody pens a perfectly will meaning amendment aimed at keeping the British in check, and two hundred years later the entire country is unable to get serious about preventing the spread of deadly weapons. The highest gun crime rates in the western world cannot be effectively combated because of an outdated footnote on a document that isn't necessary.

Plenty of western democracies exist perfectly well without a written constitution. The UK for example does not really have one (although some idiots are trying to change this). We have a complex but efficient legal system and a political system built on a foundation tradition. The result is a society that is exactly as stable as those democracies governed under a constitution, but that has historically had a easier time pursuing reform than other nations.

Sweden is another good example. Technically Sweden does have a written constitution, but the system is set up in order to encourage constitutional reform were necessary. The result is something much more flexible and akin to the British system, in fact surpassing it in many ways because of the reduced emphasis on archaic tradition. The result is a country which leads to world in terms of social reform.

An unstable nation will not have its system of government protected by a written constitution. A stable nation does not need its system of government protecting by a written constitution. Not having one, or at least making sure that it is not set in stone, allows law, government and society to better adapt, develop and respond to changes.

As for what I'd do with my hypothetical country... I've been reading a lot of Machiavelli recently. Attempting to impose an order on a society that it does not fit will almost always lead to collapse. You can't simply invent a utopian society, it has to evolve naturally.