Recently, I heard someone describe the Australian constitution as the second best in the world. No prizes for guessing the best. Since the recent 4th of July celebrations, I have been revelling in the bracing ideological purity of the Constitution of the United States of America, and I have no doubt that it is superior to the constitutions of other nations – in the mind of a liberal, anyway. What of Australia’s, however? It is hopelessly outdated and largely irrelevant – the form of state it envisions bears little likeness to modern Australia. For example, the office of Prime Minister is not mentioned at all and most of the mechanics of government exist thanks to convention rather than doctrine. It is not a bad constitution; mainly for the fact that it contains none of the Fabianesque “positive” rights (citizens have a right to a life free of poverty, etc) which tend to enable and then entrench statism. Such caveats are common in most modern constitutions, to their great detriment. If Australia’s constitution is the second best in the world, it is certainly a very distant second. As regular commenter Chris Harper said in a recent Samizdata thread,
The Constitution of the United States of America, one of the great works of human thought.
Quite. In contrast, Australia’s constitution is passable only due to the elements it does not contain – surely there are a number of superior (in ideology and effectiveness) national constitutions in place today. So what is the second best constitution in the world?
You would think Switzerland’s should be a contender. It is a country that holds a number of liberal values as national traits. It is also admired by many of the Samizdatistas, who tend to be a rather liberal bunch (for the most part). One would not be being unreasonable if they predicted that the Swiss constitution is a relatively liberal document. However, if you did predict that, you would be wrong. I did a little research to test my above hypothesis, and was surprised with what I discovered. Far from being one of the best constitutions around (from a liberal perspective), I believe the Swiss document to be one of the worst – if not the worst. For a start, it is too easily altered. According to Wikipedia, the original Swiss constitution was altered to include
the “right of initiative”, under which a certain number of voters could make a request to amend a constitutional article, or even to introduce a new article into the constitution. Thus, partial revisions of the constitution could be made any time.
Worse still, a revised version of the constitution that came into force in the 1990s
is subject to continual changes
due to
constitutional initiatives and counterproposals[.]
This is no good at all. Most liberals are deeply interested in durably enshrining the rights and freedoms of the individual; if these can be swept away on a majoritarian whim, then sooner or later it is likely they will be. Such ease of amendment dramatically weakens the document, although worse is to come. From the same Wikipedia article mentioned above:
[The] Swiss Federal Constitution has a certain peculiarity when compared to other constitutions in the world. It does not provide for any constitutional jurisdiction over any federal laws, that is, laws proclaimed by Parliament may not be struck down by the Federal Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality. This special provision in the Swiss Constitution is a manifestation of how democratic principles are held to outweigh the principles upon which the constitutional state is built.
What a terrible idea. A liberal would assert that the whole point of a constitution is to constrain majoritarian democracy – has the phrase “tyranny of the majority” been widely translated into French, German or Italian? This “peculiarity” consigns the Swiss constitution to complete irrelevance. Regarding the contents of the document – who cares? They can be ignored at any time by a majority of the Federal parliament. The constitution may currently be adhered to by Swiss federal politicians, but there is nothing enforcing their adherence. The only thing that stands between the relatively liberal arrangement the Swiss enjoy today and a Blairite soft tyranny (or worse) is the Swiss people’s enduring common sense and conservatism. I have met a number of Swiss folk in my time and have found that generally they are predisposed to exhibit both traits. However, events change people. Time changes people. If the Swiss elect a Tony Blair and the political circumstances allow it, such an individual could set about dismantling the various manifestations of Swiss liberalism, completely unrestrained by the toothless constitution. I am led to believe that the Swiss constitution is relatively popular in that country. For a generally conservative people, it is hard not to remark that they paradoxically admire a document that is inherently unconservative – dangerously so.
As for the second best constitution in the world, perhaps some of the readers of this post might put forward a few contenders.
(An English translation of the Swiss constitution can be found here – also via the aforementioned Wikipedia article.)
I find the colours & the typeface here a strain on the eyes. A pity because there is so much that is worth reading. Has anybody else complained?
Editors note: completely off-topic comments are usually deleted. And the answer is, since 2001 we have had maybe 3 complaints. Just read the site in print mode.
Regarding the colour scheme – white on deep blue is troubling? Um – no, no one else has complained about the colour scheme. And there’s not much you can do about that, because most here happen to think this is a darn sexy lookin’ blog. 🙂 However, if the typeface is too small, you can change the text to a more comfortable size by clicking on the respective font resizing boxes below the “Support Denmark” banner in the left sidebar.
Hope that helps.
Rgds,
Thank you for that interesting point of view. Being a liberal Swiss (we’ve actually started a similar blog to samizdata on http://www.freilich.ch), I periodically struggle with that aspect as well, but it is not as drastic by far as you make it out to be. Your point of view is clearly the product of your anglo-saxon perspective, not taking into account some very important differences to the US constitution.
First and foremost, Switzerland is what political scientists call a “half-direct democracy”. The Constitution therefore is work in progress, that can indeed be – and is – changed frequently. All relevant decisions can easily be subjected to popular referenda, and all changes to the constitution must be accepted by both a popular and a state majority. The rôle of the federal government (which has no position that is even remotely comparable to a President of the US or a British PM) or of Parliament is thus very much to be seen in perspective.
That being said, there clearly is an institutional risk of majoritarian dictatorship, what with the apparent dominance of the “sovereign” (i.e. the voters) over constitutional checks & balances, which is particularly stressed by the Swiss People’s Party. This risk however is checked in turn by the very much alive federalist structure of the country.
My personal view is rather different from yours in that our political setup as it is has so many levers and devices to hinder change that urgently required liberal reforms are very hard to put into place.
I would suggest the Lithuanian Constitution is pretty good. That was my impression when I read it years ago, shortly after its passage, but I’m not sure what has happened to it since.
I would suggest that the overarching principles that must be enshrined in any constitution to be considered one of the “best” is that it must state that the state is delegated its power by the people, who of right may reform or replace arbitrary government, that there are individual rights which are considered inalienable, and that amendments are passed by a supermajority process (the US double supermajority of congress and the states is particularly good). The separation of powers/checks and balances thing is good for long term stability, and having overlapping sovereignties (US Federal sovereignty, State sovereignty, and individual sovereignty) helps ensure that no one center of total power is likely to accrue, and if it does, that it does not long endure.
The issue of positive vs negative rights and so forth is something that is secondary: every society is likely at some point vote itself along the road to hell. If there are avenues for reform, or for voluntary secession or escape via immigration, that is okay: most nations eventually twig to why they suck so bad and may try to do something about it. The end of the Soviet Bloc is evidence of that.
I would argue that any nation that is restrained against its own inclinations toward tyranny for too long eventually collapses in paroxysms of violence. No Constitution can protect an apathetic or corrupt society against tyranny.
Oh, BTW: I’d also suggest you look at the Constitutions of the various states of the US, which were the basis of the US Constitution. In particular, I prefer the New Hampshire Constitution, for its explicit and broad right to keep and bear arms, its explicit right to revolution, among a number of other fine features…
New Hampshire Constitution(Link)
The constitution of the United States ,owes all to the 1689 English bill of Rights,and William the second ,the victor at the Boyne
Robert LeFavre makes some fascinating points about the US Constitution in a couple of his talks (available at mises.org) and his conclusions about it are quite devastating. Far from being a tool to limit the power of government it actually gives all manner of power to the federal government. Nor does it mention any rights of private citizens at all. They come in the Bill of Rights.
Take a look at how the US constitution came to be legitamised and who was involved and who was not involved. The “founding fathers” are often credited with the declaration of independance and the constitution yet the documents were authored and signed by largely different groups of men.
For me the declaration of independence is a far more inspiring thing. It was part of the American Revolution which, unlike any other revolution in history that I know anything about, did not seek to replace one tyrant with another but was only aimed at getting out from under one.
I tend to think that although lots of things were not mentioned in the Australian constitution, what we have is largely what was intended. Australa copied the American model for federalism, but the British model for the structure of government. As a consequence the federal aspects are written into it (as is the case in the US) and the aspects dealing wth the structure of government (as in the UK) are unwritten and implied.
Historically it hasn’t really worked that badly. At least, there have been many other systems and constitutions that have worked much worse.
Bernie there were no tyrants to get from under for the whites ,but the native american were soon to feel the heel of one.That bunch of crooks the founding fathers (sic) had plans of their own, These plans involved land,and the getting of it,by hook ,or by crook,and so it passed ,and since then it has been propaganda,ad finitum.One little snippet which amuses yours truly was the fact that the American defeat at Bighorn akka Custer,was partly due to the aquiring by the Indians of British Henry rifles.
There is nothing wrong with convention and implication in a constitution.
If the majority of Americans didn’t give a damn about their rights and were wholly apathetic to politics, how long do you think their written Constitution would protect them? Not very long, I would wager.
It’s not so much about constitutions but about the culture. Rights are secure so long as the people want them to be. Alas, in the UK that culture has been rotted away to an almost unrecognisable husk. Though that seems to have been a comparatively recent change. cf the old guy who ripped up his ID card some time after WW2, to public adulation.
“It’s a free country, innit?”.
Whilst I’m wary of anything that gives rise to majoritarian carté blanche, shouldn’t a constitution ‘for the people’ have a mechanism to be ‘by the people’, if only for certain universal rights to be protected absolutely?
Just curious…
James, your question is based on a false premise, that democracy is necessary to the protection of individual rights. The treatment of minorities in several democracies would seem to undermine your argument.
Yeah, the Oz constitution is dated, mainly because of the collapse in interest in federalism here.
In the US many people still feel a great deal of state loyalty, and this helps to support the federal nature of the constitution, but in Australia the states are these days viewed as little more than administrative regions, with few people being proud of being a crow eater, a yellow tail or a banana bender, or, in James case, a sand groper. Instead they view the state as just the place where they live in Australia.
There is a growing tendency for the Federal Government to take over the functions of the states, exemplified by the desire of the putative next Prime Minister to take over transport infrastructure from the states.
At the outbreak of the US Civil War General Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Armies by President Lincoln. However, Lee held that his primary loyalty was to his State, Virginia, not his country, so he joined the Confederacy instead. Such an attitude is now inconceivable in Australia, although I suspect not in the US.
There is nothing intrinsically out of date about the Aussie constitution; it is just that attitudes have changed faster than the document.
Bernie:
” Far from being a tool to limit the power of government it actually gives all manner of power to the federal government. Nor does it mention any rights of private citizens at all. They come in the Bill of Rights.”
Well, Lefebre is technically right but factually and historically wrong. The founders didn’t put a bill of rights in the Constitution because they found it inconceivable that they needed to be explicitly declared, particularly after so many died and were maimed to secure what everyone understood were the traditional and habitual rights of englishmen. The purpose of the Constitution was to describe a minimalist, restrained government that was internally counterbalanced, it was not to grant anybody rights they already knew they had as a Lockean consequence of being a natural born human being.
Some even said that the act of declaring some would lead to the assumption that those were the only rights, when English Common Law describes hundreds of rights (right of privacy, right of publicity, right of concience, right to travel, among others) which would be unweildy to list each and every one and describe them well enough to properly encompass and enumerate their scope.
For this reason, New Hampshire, when it became the 9th and ratifying state, insisted in its ratification that it was dependent on a bill of rights be passed to amend the Constitution.
To deal with the incompletionist argument, Madison drafted the 9th Amendment, which states any not specifically listed remain with the people. There have been, since that time, some 9th amendment cases, though typically the strong statists try to claim its a dead and obsolete amendment (just as anti-gunners claim the same of the 2nd). In fact, the Griswold case, upon which Roe v Wade was based, is entirely dependent upon a 9th amendment right of privacy.
Those who say that “the amendments aren’t part of the Constitution” are full of it. What do they think they are amending? The Constitution, of course, and thus are part and parcel of it.
As an anecdotal example – My mother is 78 years old and as conservative as they come. On the weekend she remarked, over the Australian Treasurers recently expressed desire to see Federal power extended, that she thought the States should be abolished completely.
These days, this is not an uncommon view.
There is something to be said for the expediency of agreeing to no longer pretend to the farce that there is an actual state government, and stop wasting money on the pretension. The sooner you abolish them, the quicker the central government will go overboard into tyranny and result in a new revolution.
Speaking as an American, I’m very thankful for all the accolades for the US Constitution. However, one should not exaggerate its virtues. James Waterton talked about how the office of the PM is not mentioned in the Australian Constitution. On the other hand, the US Constitution does not mention the Cabinet at all. There are also many other staples of American political life, elements that most Americans might think are codified in the Constitution which never rated a mention. The two-party system comes to mind.
So I agree with The Last Toryboy. Conventions (or “unwritten Constitution”) and culturecan be as important as the written parts . I have often said that the US Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. It can’t even defend itself against a common burglar, let alone safeguard the liberties of millions. To the extent that it means anything, it is because millions of Americans have a vague idea that it holds classical liberal values and we cherish it for that reason.
The best constitution is no constitution at all. Chris, your mother is absolutely right. But, hey, no-one is willing to walk that way. Unfortunately.
The most often cited secular text at the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification process was Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. Indeed, portions of the text were regularly published in American newspapers at the time as material to fill in blank spaces in the papers. It is rather unfortunate that Montesquieu’s influence on the U.S. Constitution is not more readily admitted outside intellectual circles.
The second-best constitution in the world was of course the British one – before T. Blair got started on it.
I am not entirely decided on this issue. I like the idea of constitutions and of course I think the sheer existence of such things can exert a brake on the abuse of power. I say “can”, not “will”. (The former Soviet Union had such a thing.)
What counts is having a culture saturated with respect for liberty and a tradition of autonomous institutions jealous of their powers. Such conditions have gradually been in decline in some countries like Britain. We no longer respect freedom. Folk like former Samizdata contributor, the authortarian cynic Euan Gray, would argue that constitutions are just “social constructs” and therefore not worthy of anything other than temporary respect until the latest fad of the mob takes over.
But it does always impress me that, despite the ravages of time and socialism, some of the main aspects of the U.S. and Swiss constitutions remain. In the case of the Swiss, I think the sense of being apart, as a smallish, independent nation, has played a part in keeping things as they are.
And I rather like Switzerland.
This concept of “preventing abuses of power” strikes me as somewhat odd. Kind of like saying “abusive rapist”.
Unfortunately, no other constitution on earth is enduring. The United States Constitution, which you consider the best in the world, changes all the time. However, while the Swiss constitution requires the majority vote in majority of the cantons, the US Constitution can change its meaning by a majority decision by an appointed court.
I prefer the prior rather than the latter. And since all Swiss laws can be faced before the same voters that ratified the constitution; it seems rather stupid to have a court to decide the constitutionality of a law – if the people who approved of the constitution says a law is quite alright, which judge should be given the power to say no?
Evidently, the referendum haven’t led to a majoritarian mob tyranny. Yet every country that adopted barely-restrainted independent judiciary review of laws led to an autocratic judiciary system – passing laws at the bench. America, a big example, or Canada, for another.
Between potential of a tyranny of the majority and the ever-real tyranny of the judiciary, I’ll stick to the prior.
Bernie, I disagree. Even minimal statists would accept that certain officials of the state, or their agents, like soldiers, have certain powers. They need to be constrained by certain rules. I don’t see why that expression was odd at all.
Problem is, Montesquieu ain’t exactly easy reading. There’s a lot of context you have to have.
As a US dude, I”m kind of embarrassed our Constitution is considered so highly, though I respect it (but far more the DoI). Are there no other good candidates to examine?
It’s interesting to hear libertarians defend the U.S. Constitution, when the Confederate States Constitution much better fits the argument that the constitution was drafted to form a limited government.
Where the US Constitution has “We, the people of the United States,” the CS Constitution adds “each State acting in its sovereign and independent character.”
In addittion to Art. 1 Sec 8 Part 1, where the US Constitution says “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises”; the CS Constitution limits this power, adding: “but no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry.” In your face, Founding Fathers! Score one for free trade.
In part 3 “[Congress shall have power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (and libertarians are defending this document?) the CS add “but neither this nor any other clause contained in the Cpnstitution shall be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce.”
There is a whole new clause in the CS Constitution at Art. 1, Sec 9, Par 9: “Congress shall appropriate no money from the treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses [It goes on to describe how the vote shall be taken]”
The CS Constitution also extends the term of President to six years, but makes no person ‘reeligible’ after that six years, although ti doesn’t say if you can try again after a six year break.
Admittedly, there are two clause which may be less palatable to libertarians: those that guarantee the continuance of slavery in all Confederate States. Still, I’m sure the framers would have argued that this was merely necessary protection for the property rights we all hold so dear.
I also think we should be careful before assuming that all constitutions are as tey say they are. Just because the US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) represents some of the best thinking of the Enlightenment, is no reason to assume that it has, in any way achieved its aims.
Article 3 of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. says: “All power in the UU.S.S.R belongs to the working people of town and coutry” and Article 4 claims to have eliminated “the exploitation of man by man.” I’m not saying taht the two cases are directly comparable, merely that high-blown sentiments do not necessarily translate into realities.
So, I’m going to stick up for the mess of common law, various historical concessions made by kings and queens, and frankly silly traditions that make up the British Constitution. Admittedly, in an age where people have no confidence in themselves, and unwritten constitution can be seen as dangerous, offerign no protection from government’s actions. However, I would argue that the terrorism Acts of 2001 and 2002, whilst infringing our liberties, are no greater an infringement of them than that contained in the Patriot Act 2001, which a written constitution failed to prevent.
I’d argue, with some Americans still defending Operation TIPS, illegal detention in Guantanamo Bay, and unwarranted wiretapping of citizens, that liberties cannot be defended by a Constitution. They can only be defended by individuals interested in that Constitution, whether written or not.
Odd. I’m not sure what the Australian commenters here are talking about, because I’d always heard that Australia had the shortest constitution in the world – two words: “nah poufters!”. That accomplished, I note that the US constitution has unfortunately been unable to restrain the growth of government and the decline of culture in the last century. I don’t see it as a success. We’d be better off changing to the Australian one.
Sheriff wrote…
James, your question is based on a false premise, that democracy is necessary to the protection of individual rights. The treatment of minorities in several democracies would seem to undermine your argument.
You seem to have misinterpreted my question. My question was not based on the premise of democracy being necessary to protect individual rights. The question itself signals my acknowledgement that democracy is not in a position to uphold the rights of individuals and minorities. I can see on second reading that it could have misrepresented itself.
I am asking, if certain rights could be protected from interference, shouldn’t a constitution that is ‘for the people’ have a mechanism to be ‘by the people’, ie by petition and plebiscite? It only seems fair.
the reason this amendment are in the confederate constitution is because the southern economy depended on trade with the British Isles , and probably not because of any ideological commitment to free markets.
The Australian approach is to change the Constitution when people want the government to do more.
The American approach is to leave the Constitution unchanged (at least as regards as to the powers of the government in D.C.) and just insist over time (for example by appointing new Judges as old one retire) that the Suprme Court “interpret” the Constitution to allow the Welfare State.
The “common defence and general welfare” of the people of the United States have gone from being the PURPOSE of the powers granted to Congress (for example to have an army, a navy and post office – if they choose to have one) to be being POWERS-IN-THEMSELVES.
So one can say Social Security or Medicare are Constitution (ever though they clearly are not constitutional) because they are for the “general welfare”.
Just as back in 1935 the Supreme Court ruled (all nice Justices I believe) that the National Revovery Agency (created under the National Industrial Recovery Act) had no power to create a vast web of regulations with the force of law.
As ever if Congress could pass laws (under the power to “regulate interstate commerce”) it could not hand over this power to an executive agency via an vague “Enabling Act”.
However, the “modern” (i.e. vast interventionist) state could not exist without such large scale powers for executive agencies – so the Constititution is “interpreted” to allow them.
As elections from 1936 have shown this is what most people want.
Conservatives can win (as Reagan did in 1980 and 1984) but only by opposing government “waste” – a formal campaign against unconstitutional spending progams or regulations would be suicide.
So the Australian Constitution is changed as public opinon changes and the American Constitution is left unchanged – and “interpreted” to allow statism.
In theory the Constitutions are very different – but in practice (as explained above) the difference is less important than it might seem.
As for the Swiss.
In 1848 the old system was overturned by armed violence. There was a majority in the Swiss Conferation Parlaiment for this (but only because St Gallen supported the action – and the election in St Gallen had only been won by the radicals by a tiny number of votes).
For decades after 1848 conservative catholic Cantons like Zug were occupied by radicals – elections rigged, conservatives forbidden to stand (and so on).
This story is little known today.
However, the Federal government set up in 1848 (the old system had basically no Federal government for the Confederation at all) was quite limited – and actions at Canton level were largely to keep militant Roman Catholics under control (the Catholic Cantons having banded together in the Sonderbund before 1848).
Indeed the ease by which the rural Catholic Cantons were crushed in 1848 may have given President Lincoln a false view of how easy it would be to crush dissenting States in 1861.
The limited government set up under the Constitution of 1848 were expanded by the Constitution of 1874 (this is where the rot really set in).
And there have been various constitutional changes since then.
These days government spending in Switzerland is still less than in most countries (and there is still less of such things as “gun control”) but Switzerland is not really the free market place that most people think it is.
Perhaps Zug is the Canton that best shows the old antistatist tradition. The lowest taxed today – even in the 18th century the town did not tax the rural peasants (there was a sort of mini federalism which prevented the town just taking the food the farmers produced – which was a common practice with Italian city states in hard times) also Zug never had the state steal church lands – one of the very few places in Europe where this did not happen.
Having now read the thread (rather just jump in and write about my old topics – such as how the PURPOSE of the powers granted to Congress in Section Eight of Article One of the Constitution of the United States, is now used as if it were a catch all power), one thing that interested me was the Australian attitude to the States.
This really goes all the way back to the 1942 wartime judgement for income tax to go to the Federal government (not to the States).
Most taxes in Australia are paid to the Federal government – so the State governments are just job creation schemes for local politicians and administrators.
It comes as no surprise to me that conservative types would like to just abolish State governments.
There is still more of a difference in taxes in the United States.
For example, total State and local taxes in Maine are about 13% of total income – whereas in Alaska (even if one includes taxes on oil) it is about 6.5%
A gap of about 6 to 7 per cent of total income would not be tolerated in Britian or Australia.
Also the Australian Federal government is (by the very low standards of the modern world) not that bad.
For example, it has a balanced budget and it spends less (again as a percentage of the whole economy) less than government does in Britain or the United States.
In fact government spending has declined a bit (as a percentage of the economy) since John Howard became Prime Minister in 1996.
On the general constitutions point – many of the American State Constitutions are interesting (not just but, yes, including the New Hampshire).
Overall I am not negative about the United States Constitution – the trouble is there is no way to enforce it.
A goverment appointed Supreme Court is hardly likely to do a good job.
But the basic point remains – no constitution will do much good if most people no longer believe in its basic principles.
And most Americans have not believed in strictly limited government since at least 1936.
What a Constitution can do (if it is very clearly written) is give governments a little bit of doubt when they move to do something that violates it.
Instead of “let us do X” (to please some interest group or just because they feel like it), it is “do we really have most people in support of X – because if we do not the Judges may actually point out that it is unconstitutional”.
Where there is not clear majority support for a policy (such as gun banning in the United States) governments will be careful if it is unconsitutional – just in case a court decided to enforce the document.
It was not really the Supreme Court that failed in the 1930’s (although their failure to act against the gold confiscation and voiding of gold clauses in contracts in 1933 may have been fatal to later resistance to the F.D.R. regime), it was the American people who failed.
Most of them believed (quite wrongly) that a more interventionist government would help them get out of their terrible economic plight – and therefore decided to turn their backs on the principles of limited government (this they showed in 1936 elections).
In my judgement most Americans (and most British people) are no better now than they were then. Most likely worse – would 40% of Americans vote against such things as “entitlement programs” now?
Perhaps Ludwig Von Mises was right. One has to convince people that freedom is in their economic self interest – otherwise (ancient documents or no ancient documents) they will not give a toss about it.
I’m just 17 but I’ll give this discussion a shot. I personally an a liberal and strongly believe in stability in constitutions in order for them to be a constitutional government. The main goal of basically any country is to raise the standard of living because of their own economic self-interest. And if the Swiss can shoot for something better then aren’t they failing themselves by not standing up and changing the constitution finally for the better or are they just going to sit around waiting to be told what to do; sounds like they want a dictatorship one day. <- highly sarcastic but in reality STAND UP SWEDENS!!
No, not at all! Governments do not the raise standard of livings, the economy does. People creating wealth, not governments. Government consume wealth. A government’s job is to stand behind individual liberty and anything else is a very bad idea indeed.
How about the Spanish Constitution of 1812? Not a big fan of monarchy (even severly limited), but it pretty much enumerates all of the same rights and liberties in the U.S. Constitution (and more) but in a more rigid manner. Heck it even has the King personally take an oath to protect private property and individual liberty, and has provisions to prosecute officials who trample them.
I believe the Mexican Constitution should be concidered as one of the best. The first 29 articles in it are all about individual rights. It gives the right to live, be free, expression, freedom to roam without the need of documents, right to not be bothered by authority (without a judicial order), It even says that when a slave from another country steps a foot in Mexico, he or she becomes free from that monent on…. etc etc.
In other sectios (titles) it establishes the way the government will work, judicial, legislative and executive branches. It establishes the rules for the worker-boss relationship.
Most importantly, it establishes the “juicio de amparo”. This is a kind of “lawsuit” against the government. It can be done when the authority violates any of your constitutional rights.
I personally believe it is a very beautiful document.
By far and away the finest constitution ever written, the one that best and most poetically enshrines rights and freedoms of persons in a fundamental bill of rights, limits government, and empowers its people is that of South Africa. The Republic’s constitution is a marval of drafting, jurisprudence and equity that puts any and every other extant constitution to shame. Read it. It will make you cry – as an Afrikaner South African, I am proud that my country has achieved the ultimate in constitutional development and sophistication governed by the rule of law – in theory at least and so far largely in practice. It took us since 1652 to develop this document in Africa, but it is based on republican principles strongly linked to republican thought and ideals through our legal system, again one of the world’s most sophisticated through its direct Roman Law lineage (our highly sophisticated legal system, again probably the best in the world given its unbroken history of two thousand years of Roman Law development, being the real constitution – or framework of it – behind the constitution…).