The Fetish of the Constitution

By Carlos Guevara Rodríguez, Circumstantial Columnist

There is the idea that a Political Constitution of the State is the solution to the ills that a country faces, assuring the rule of law and democracy. I wish it were that simple. Writing a constitution is easy compared to ensuring the continuation of a genuine democracy or governing well and adopting the right measures and policies even though they may be difficult, costly or unpopular but necessary.

That is why it is understandable that the idea of ​​a Constitution as the great solution to a country’s ills is so seductive. Which model of government is the best and how to govern in the best way have been concerns of humanity since it formed societies complex enough to require them. If we only had the “correct” Constitution we would have solved these problems. The last to be seduced by this idea is former President Sánchez de Lozada.

Unfortunately, experience shows that the existence of a Constitution, no matter how wise it may be, does not guarantee the development and well-being of a society or the permanence of democracy. Moreover, it would seem that achieving development and genuine democracy is in inverse proportion to the number of constitutions a country has: the fewer constitutions the more developed and democratic they are, and the more constitutions the less developed and democratic. The most illustrative example is that of the United States: since it adopted its Constitution in 1789, it has not changed it for another, although it has reformed it. How many constitutions has Bolivia had? How many constitutions have other countries in the region had?

To such an extent is it true that a Constitution is not necessary to achieve high levels of material well-being and a genuine rule of law, that two of the most emblematic countries in this sense, the United Kingdom and Israel, do not have a Constitution.

In this matter it is instructive to remember the National Revolution of 1952, which was a true revolution. The measures he carried out profoundly changed the country, leading to the incorporation into national life for the first time of the native population, which made up approximately two thirds of the total population. To do so he did not need to promulgate a new Constitution.

The opposite pole was the MAS government. The changes that he introduced in his Constitution were of form, not substance. His “change process” introduced changes, but changes for the worse. To make matters worse and to culminate with the trivialization of the Constitution, Evo Morales violated his own Constitution by trying to perpetuate himself in power despite the explicit prohibition in it to do so. This attempt was only possible to carry out by violating another of the basic constitutional precepts for a true rule of law: the independence of the powers, in this case both the judicial power and the electoral power.

Once again, the case of the US is illustrative. Donald Trump, the US president before the current one, tried to cling to a second term ignoring Joe Biden’s victory, an attempt that culminated in the seizure of Congress by its bases for a few hours to prevent his opponent’s victory from being formalized. When he was put on trial for those facts in Congress, he was exonerated by his co-religionists in the Senate.

Sánchez de Lozada’s draft Constitution aims to guarantee “the rule of freedom and social equity, within the framework of democracy, above political vicissitudes.” This would be achieved through “mechanisms to protect political stability and prevent the struggle for power from developing outside of democracy and its institutions.” All with the purpose of defending “freedom and democracy from the siege of authoritarianism.”

Sadly, neither the Constitution proposed by Sánchez de Lozada nor any other can guarantee freedom, democracy and material well-being. The Constitution is not an exogenous divine intervention, you cannot resort to a higher power to enforce it. Nor can it by itself enforce its precepts. If the rulers are not willing to abide by the Constitution, there is no possible Constitution that can endure.