In the Second Enlightenment, it would be helpful and wise if mature societies had attitudes of flexibility, and established built-in mechanisms to be able to revise old constitutions or draft new ones in a way that would correspond to the era and issues each new generation is facing. In general terms, we tend to envision a constitutional system as an unassailable solution to our political difficulties, which is true in essence. Naturally, a constitution is essential for a democracy and a lawful society. But perhaps it is time to realize that a constitution in itself can become a problem. Sometimes certain parts of a drafted constitution become obsolete and no longer address existing or newly arising problems of the day. Constitutions sometimes ultimately lock a society into a political system that a people no longer wish to abide by, whether a republic, a monarchy or a theocracy. Thus, the constitution is both a solution and a problem.

The Myth of Using Majority Rule for Judging Critical Issues

Oftentimes constitutions and democracies respect the rule of majority. The term majority sounds so fair and has been given so much respect that it needs to be reassessed for the danger that comes with it: one could say that the measure of ‘majority’ puts too much emphasis on numbers in the decision-making process, rather than considering the actual validity of the issue at stake. It is about what if the majority passes or supports laws that are not in the common interest of everyone.  A ‘majority’ could win the vote on dangerous and harmful issues. Even though democracy has claimed its legitimacy on the rule of majority, this should be challenged on the premise of democracy refers to the ‘rule of people,’ not necessarily the rule of majority over a minority.

Let us unpack the three types of ‘majority,’ and keep our focus on one critical type of majority. The first type of majority is when a referendum is held to ask the public about an important agenda or even put the legitimacy of the system for a vote. The second type is the votes to elect legislators. The third type of majority is when politicians, legislators vote on key issues for the nation and beyond. Obviously the first two types of the majoritarianism are bona fide work of democracy. However, the third kind of majority is a sensitive matter that is under scrutiny here.

When legislators have the right to cast their votes on issues that are dangerous, unethical and discriminatory issues, their majority votes turn it into a law. But a voting majority does not legitimize the motion. Legislatures have voted by majority to legalize lynching, slavery, colonialism, taking away women’s rights, and the wars of our own time. In other words, a majority outcome does not always mean it’s the right thing to do. Let us be clearer: there are some issues that should not even be put to a vote, particularly human rights issues such as health care access, gender discrimination, war, slavery, lynching, and other limiting patriarchal, social, ethnic and cultural agendas that impact human rights. Even if a majority were to vote for such blatantly offensive issues, it would not make them right.

For example, let us imagine that on a vote considering the legality of slavery, the majority were to vote ‘yes’ to slavery. It is mathematically the rule of majority. The majority is not good enough. Such important questions need another level of consideration, another filter to deeply reflect on the nature and dignity of crucial issues. Common dignity should be the measuring stick to justify the validity of the issue in question and the rule of majority.

But imagine the same topic but asked in a different way, a way that turns the question back to the voter: “Should others be able to take you as a slave – yes, or no?” This rhetorical question implicates the voter himself. If he says ‘yes,’ he will be taken as a slave. If he says ‘no’ then the risk is lifted for him as well as for everyone else. In the analogous context of the right to abortion and the rights of the individuals over their own body, those men who vote to make abortion illegal, should be asked: “would you like to be told you should or should not have vasectomy – yes, or no?” In this case, reframing the question into a “Golden Rule” – style of vote is more likely to result in decisions that actually benefit everyone or are in the common interests or have the highest moral value.

The same majority can vote on no health insurance or no subsidized housing, or the right to carry a gun in order not be shot at but be able to shoot someone else. Here, the majority of numbers does not translate to making a wrong thing right. A majority does not necessarily guarantee the principles of common interest.

The edict of ‘majority rules,’ can become the source of depersonalizing others as non-self and doing cruel things to a society such as excluding women from making decisions for herself, discriminating against LGBTQ groups, or commodifying nature by exploiting and polluting it. What is put at the vote, its result can take us to the range of things from super progressive to the most reactionary political circumstances.

So, the idea of ‘majority rules’ as prescribed in most constitutions is overvalued; relying solely on numerical outcomes is not sufficient if a vote is intended to make a decision that would be in everyone’s best interests. sometimes supersedes the legitimacy and relevancy of the issues for the collective interest.

Constitutions need to be honed with wellbeing and socioeconomic justice for all, using more precision than just depending on the unchecked majority. Alternatives to these previously political practices may seem few, but with imagination our new checks and balances can be made more constructive for all by involving impartial and independent sagacious thinkers, wise councils and people themselves in the decision-making rather than just the ‘number games’ of majority by the politicians and the interest groups alone. People need to be on top of their constitutions and make necessary changes to protect the interest of ALL groups of the society.

****

Renewable Constitutions for a Shifting World

If constitutions are instead treated as sacred and unchangeable texts, venerated for decades and centuries, there can potentially be two groups of casualties: first, the new generations who disagree with more and more of that constitution as it becomes outdated, and secondly, those who are the victims of corruption by the elites who entrench their power by way of an obsolete constitution.

A solution in modern societies could be a regular process in which a constitution is reviewable, renewable, and amendable by both the constituents and elected legislatures. For example, a country could decide that every 40 years (or some time period to be decided) they would hold a review process to check on the viability of the constitution, the health of the political system, and to hear the praise and complaints of the public. They could then hold a referendum reflecting the results of the national review process.

If we were to draft a constitution now, in the year 2022, we cannot possibly imagine that it would still be valid two or three hundred years from now. We cannot foresee changes in the technological, environmental, psychological, economic, educational, and other realms and how those changes would require updates to that constitution. Generations must have the opportunity to revisit the previous generations’ constitutions. Constitutions can no longer be viewed in a semi-‘biblical’ light of a revelation that can never be changed. When coal miners in the early 1900s held strikes against the plutocrat industrialists for higher pay, more humane hours, and safer working place, the industrialists objected to the intervention of the government in the working of capitalism, claiming it to be unconstitutional. But President Theodore Roosevelt in support of the miners said that the constitution is in the service of people, not that people are in the service of the constitution.

The Second Enlightenment would entail creatively adapting to the accelerating pace of change in the world, and embracing change by working with it, rather than resisting it.   `