So why don't we just accept the fact that an overthrown government is always replaced with something that is either corrupt, has absolute power, or no power whatsoever *(OR A CONSTITIONAL DICTATORSHIP*)*?

Forgot to correct that part at the end.

From a functional/practical standpoint, why would a sitting dictator bother to draft a constitution, and what recourse would the people have to reject the same?

Hecks makes the obvious rejoinder. But I might meet the underlying idea with another question: So why don't we just accept the fact that we are going to die in the end anyway, and just kill ourselves?

hecks: The dictator would make the constitution so he isn't considered a authoritarian, just a possibly temporary leader of the country. If he isn't considered an authoritarian he will have more public support, and maybe he just really wants the best for the nation. That's 2 reasons to draft such a constitution. The people could overthrow the government if they don't like it, which is exactly what they always do. The main difference is that you can actually stand by a side, other than some con artists from different backgrounds. You can choose to support the constitution, or overthrow it, instead of choosing between 2 authoritarian dictators.

If that's easier to understand, it's like the difference between a site where you have to give permission to the site owners to do anything they want with your computer or a site where they have site rules that count for the owners as well, such as don't crash the computer, don't use the account, don't steal cash and what not. If they do so, you are supposed to overthrow them. In the first example, everybody except maybe the dictator tries to get the power or a peaceful nation, and they have to decide after every decision if they want to overthrow the government.

Also it depends on how the dictator forms the constitution of course. He could just make a parliament much like the American Congress is to the American president. Basically the dictator doesn't just tell the people he'll be good and all, he also tells the people when they should overthrow him, and orders the military to indeed overthrow him if he does break the constitution.

There would be order if such a thing is pulled off, and real changes can be made.

Basically, once it's pulled off, it's much like democracy as it is implemented in the US, except there may be no voting and the leader doesn't get replaced every 4 years or something, and if the constition is accepted by the majority/military, he won't be overthrown soon either, simply since he has the support of his people and people who support you usually don't overthrow you. It's more realistic IMO.

Another way to look at it to better understand the concept is that the leader doesn't want to get killed by a mad populace nor by a military, so he gives the military like a red button that is only unlocked when they break the constitution that suits the people.

So basically the dictator agrees to not abuse his power in exchange for not getting overthrown. Reasonable deal I'd say.

And the constitution could be as tight as the dictator permits and the people demand. That part of the deal is just supply and demand.

ckroberts: because life is(/could be, if you don't think it is like me) good/fun, and it's something people 'aim for'. People usually don't aim for public unrest, daily riots and authoritarian dictators abusing their 'power' (which they don't have if they just get overthrown the next day, hence a constitution would be in their favour). Foreign powers probably prefer dealing with a country with a constitution as well, rather than an authoritarian dictatorship or an anarchy.

I mean most living tend to prefer life above death for obvious reasons, just to clarify.

So why, once the dictator has written his constitution, does (s)he not change it on a whim when it gets in the way?

And governments with no power can continue for years, look at somalia.

orathaic: because the constitution should disallow this, and an independent force, like the military, promises to uphold the constitution, and therefore promises to overthrow the dictator if he breaks the constitution by changing it if it isn't through paths mentioned in the constitution (like, there has to be a large majority vote).

"And governments with no power can continue for years, look at somalia."

Sure, but there's no point in having a government with no power. It's like having no government. Look at Somalia.

And of course, this only works if the populace wants it to work, but that's the point: the people choose if it works. If the people prefer anarchy or an authoritarian dictatorship above the offered constitution, they just overthrow the dictator. Surely at some point there will be a leader that can make it work.

@Steephie,
I question whether a self-drafted constitution would provide even the nominal cover for a dictator to be considered anything else. Look, for example, at the Egyptian constitution. That *was* drafted with a somewhat transparent process, and both the Egyptian public and the international community were highly critical of the process because they felt it wasn't inclusive enough. So in the end, I suspect that a unilaterally-drafted constitution would actually do less to provide a veneer of ostensible legitimacy than simply declaring a state of emergency and invoking "temporary" martial law under a "suspended" constitution.

hecks: That's because the constitution was bad. And the people overthrew it (right? Or is that not the one you're talking about? :P). Good for them. Now someone just needs to be in power and make a good constitution that works for the majority. People just shouldn't pretend like there was a democracy, like they did in Egypt. There was just a dictator that made an election to choose between 2 other dictators. Of course it gets overthrown. Thank God or whoever you believe in it gets overthrown. Overthrowing such a government is more democratic than the government itself IMO.

Steephie, if the population is willing to overthrow a dictator, why wouldn't they be willing to defend democratic governance? I guess I am confused. I understand (though disagree with) the argument that a powerful central authority can act more effectively than a democratic government can. But that doesn't seem to be your point. You are more concerned about eventual possibilities which may not even come to pass (much of the world has had relatively peaceful representative government for decades), which seems to me akin to drinking hemlock at the sign of every cold.

Yes, setting up a democracy is a messy business (and there was plenty of that in the formation of the US government).

However, I'm going to throw this out there. The advantages of an inclusive democracy over a autocracy or a oligarchy is this:

Talent pool. In an autocracy, the people running the show are the ruler, and the ruler's advisers and ministers. Basically, its whoever the ruler wants. In the past, that has tended to be the aristocracy, so your talent pool for leaders is effectively limited to what... five percent of the population?

Oligarcy, same problem, slightly larger pool (it would really depend on the autocracy and the oligarchy, it could go either way. In any case, a limited pool).

In a functional democracy, in theory, anybody can participate in the political process. Yes, the American republic isn't perfect in this regard, but at least its laid out that there are no legal bars for the average citizen to become involved (and an argument could be made that Congress is made up of average citizens... a telling sign of the kind of people we produce, yes?)

That is the chief advantage of a democracy... a wide and deep pool to draw upon for leaders.

One might argue that what we've got in the USA is a particularly open oligarchy: a defined and separate ruling class (or ruling classes) makes most of the important decisions, but it's relatively easy for capable people to move into, or more accurately be drafted into, certain parts of that ruling class. Obama I think would be the best evidence for this viewpoint.

The United States is a democratic constitutional republican oligarchic semi-aristocratic electoral despotic set of city-states intertwined into one big building in our designated capitol. Good luck repeating it elsewhere. People should get over that facetious dream.

Also, you seem to assume the existance of an independent military, like Egypt, where the military has now taken power.

It was independent of the previous two civilian governments which it removed from power.

Pakistan might be another good example, it has a massively influential military, and several generals have run the country as president (though the latest rules have required that they step down from their position in the miltary in order to become president)

There remains a very close tie between the military and government in Pakistan, definitely not an independent nation. Read a bit about it.

The russian revolution might be another good example, there was a tzar (dictator) a military (the white army) and a people (the bolsheviks), oh and two revolutions... And a civil war. This is the type of mess you are supporting?

ckroberts: "Steephie, if the population is willing to overthrow a dictator, why wouldn't they be willing to defend democratic governance?"

They would be willing to defend democratic governance, but how? The only way to do that right now in countries like Egypt is overthrowing the dictators you don't like, because, sure, they got a choice, but they were not given a choice most people would consider a reasonable choice, just one dude or another dude. That's not democracy to me, or at least not better than any dictatorship.

In fact, the only way to get a functional democracy would be through dictatorship, by a dictator that really wants a democracy, in a way that can't be influenced by a dictator, at least not much. However, power corrupts. So the first priority for a just ruler who wants to solve the problems would be, in my opinion, to create a constitution that people are willing to follow, since that way you don't hold much power, making you not very corrupt.

It's like making someone promise to kill you if you use a bad word. You are less likely to use the bad word. Good for everyone. I know that's a weird comparison but it's just another explanation of my thinking.

Also, as for me being more concerned about eventualities that may not even happen, well, if it doesn't happen, this doesn't need to happen. But if other stuff does happen, such as stuff in Egypt, my idea seems like a good solution to me.

Jack_Klein: so would you say a civil war and all other mess that happened were worth it for setting up the current American system, which is, essentially, given some recent law changes, more like a dictatorship with votes for a new dictator every 4 years?

What I'm suggesting is basically America's current system except without a democracy somewhere along the route. After a few hundred years of messy democracy there's finally a stable system, but it's much like what I'm suggesting, which is a constitutional dictatorship.

Sure, there's some voting, but all the people can really control is which con artist they want as president and which people they let vote for or against war and other stuff, as I understand it. So yeah, by my definitions as I posed them, and my understanding of some of the laws of the US (like the presidential veto, I mean, come on guys!), I would say the USA is pretty much a good example of what I'm suggesting, just without the messy background, and well, less practically absolute power for the president.

orathaic: no! I'm not supporting that mess! I'm supporting the idea of making that mess very hard to materialize. I'm not assuming any military at all either, any armed forces will do. As long as no one supports the dictator when he breaks the constitution, his downfall will come soon enough. I mean, seriously, I wouldn't give it more than an hour until a dictator that is known to be breaking such a constitution is killed, banned or at the very least overthrown. He's on his own, except for the traitors that break the constitution made by the man they support. That would be really bad hypocrites.

What happens when the military overthrows the dictator even though the constitution was not violated? I think your "checks and balances" might be a little one-sided.

Well, if it happens before they agree to the constitution, there is no constitution, just a failed attempt. If it happens after the constitution has been agreed on, well that would require the majority of the military to be traitors while they made an oath or something to uphold the constitution, and it would lead to civil war which could be won by either side I suppose.

But that last thing could happen in the USA too. It's just not going to happen any time soon. If the military is too strong for the people (which it shouldn't be IMO, I believe mass-desertion is the way to world peace :)) they hold the power. That counts for every country.

Note that if people just hate the constitution, it will be overthrown anyway. It's the dictator's job to get a constitution supported by the vast majority.

@steephie, i think i've said it before, but you sound like you are pretty young. And as such, i feel you deserve some aplause, for asking these kinds of questions, it shows the kind of open mind which i wish some others would attempt. I suspect it will help you learn a lot.

But back to your fictional country, who becones the dictator in the first place? How do they manage it? Consider the russian Tzar, the mongol's great Khan Ghengis, the egyptian Morsi, the Syrian Assad.

What military / armed militia force exists to counter those who backed these dictators?

What about a dictator who is commander-in-chief? He kight declare tue constitution null and void due to national emergency (like a Nazi invasion, aliens, a nuclear attack or terrorist uprising) should the army follow orders or ignore the commander? What if half of them follow orders and the other half attempt to defend the constitution?

orathaic: not sure if you said it before, but yeah :P

Then, thanks for the applause. Now, back to bussiness though :P

It doesn't matter who takes the power. We know it will be in an undemocratic fashion as always, and therefore we know we have no influence over this. However, the populace is able to remove whoever is in power. The only thing that matters is that that person wants stability and peace, and is willing to strain his own power to achieve this. If he doesn't he gets removed as always. When such a person does come, he could use this idea to add some stability and make sure the power doesn't corrupt him.

Of course, the army shouldn't have all power, and it should be prevented where possible, but sometimes it's not. However, in the example of Egypt, once such a person comes, he could work together with foreign countries that are respected by the populace, like the western european countries I'm guessing, or the US. I think those people would be willing to just add a level of stability. The idea behind it is similar to nuclear weapons (I don't support such weapons though, but the idea is good): just put a death switch on the one that has too much power, and the west would only be allowed to use it when the military breaks the constitution, otherwise the west is breaking the constitution, and the west likes to claim moral authority so they wouldn't just do that.

Just an example.

However, I just agreed with myself that I don't post more posts if I have homework for the next day so I may well not post for a day or a few days.

I think the problem Steephie is getting at is the contradiction between state-building & liberalism. The state has to have sufficient capabilities of enforcing law and order, effective court systems, etc before it can try to adhere to standards of liberal constitutionalism that become the dominant zeitgeist over the past 50+ years. Countries that try to do both at the same time typically fail, the burdens of liberalism are beyond their capacity.

Orathaic brings up a great example - Pakistan. Pakistan began as an independent state as a fairly liberal parliamentary democracy. Its military was initially weak, and actually administrated by the British in the year years of independence. It was only after several years of gridlock over constitution-making and an increased in ability to exercise effective political control over restive regions like East Bengal that the military stepped in and took over in 1958. An even more instructive example is the lead-up to the 1971 civil war, when the government decided to hold elections that would determine the make-up of the constituent assembly that would make the constitution. The result of this high-stakes election was an inability of the parties to compromise over the composition of the government that would decide the long-term fate of the country - leading to civil war. This event proves the danger of putting constitutionalism before state-building.

It is instructive that the US Constitution was made by an unelected body and in secret, presented as essentially a fait accompli to the public. Constitutions, at least ones starting from scratch, tend to be written and implemented in a more or less autocratic way. It's just too difficult to overcome the varied interests of competing constituencies otherwise.

Interesting JR, i was actualky thinkig of more recent Pakistani coups, but it is very nice to learn more.

Also, i think the Irish constitution might be a good example, it basically reinforced the social instittions which already existed, shifted power sligthly (towards the Catholic church and away from the Protestant Church of Ireland) and built on an already florishing democracy. It used ideas which were already familiar, basically copying the structures (both judicial, and parlimentary) of the Britian fromwhich Ireland was gaining it's independance - likewise the US constitution owed a lot to the structure of the British Empire at the time of US independance - as a result the US president has a lot more power than the Irish president - both positions are head of state, modelled after the rulong British monarch, but the power of the British monarch waned greatly in the ~150 years between these constitutions.

The US constitution didn't abolish the colonies which were happily functioning at the time - it didn't establish a single over-riding authority to unify them, it allowed them to continue as states doing their own thing while creating a minor federal government to regulate inter-colony trade and co-ordinate a unifed military effort. IE using the structures which already worked - a document which was written in secret and then presented to the public, but DIDN'T change their daily lives much, was a huge success - ok it had pretty big long term consequences, but it didn't upset the apple cart.

Yes. Good points. The Irish & American constitutions did not alter the existing social order very much, and were ratified by largely homogeneous populations who all shared a common culture - more or less. . Whereas the Pakistani national state, and most developing states trying to become liberal democracies today, had to overcome pre-existing social orders that were not conducive to state-building, and had a long history of more or less autonomous rule. Sindh was its own political entity, with its own culture & language. Ditto Punjab, Bengal, and Balochistan. Balochistan and the Pashtun areas had a long history of domination by tribal chiefs/sardars. Sindh & Punjab were overwhelmingly dominated by powerful landlords. Meanwhile you have an influx of urban based refugees from India who are versed in bureaucratic administration and have completely different interests than the traditional Muslim elite of these areas.

All of this made it extraordinarily difficult to reach any kind of agreement on a constitution democratically - the conflict between centralizers and provincial autonomists was too great - ergo military intervention occurred.

Even the United States - despite the fact that the US Constitution changed comparatively little, and the population was culturally homogeneous - it had serious disagreements about the Constitution and narrowly ratified it. Trying to approve a constitution by democratic means before the machinery of the state has been sufficiently built up is extraordinarily dangerous. Countries that follow the south American/east Asian/southern European (Spain/Portugal) approach of gradual liberalization will likely have better success.