Well, the people’s voice has spoken. This is what democracy is – by the people – not by the politicians. I have great respect for the Dutch and French people who are free independent thinkers, without the blind-trust in their government, who does not necessarily represent the wills of their people.
A bad constitution is worse than no constitution (because it will become the law of the land that there will be no turning back). That's precisely echoed by the voters.
If anyone has read the EU Constitution, you will notice that it is doomed to fail because it so poorly conceived and badly written that it looks more like a hack than a design. It is so micro-managing that it failed its own purpose by its text. Granted that it was drafted with a lot of compromises, but that is where the problem lies – it is very inconsistent. It has not gone through the public debate process, let alone the inclusion of the new members in the drafting process until a year ago. It really is a half-ass job, IMO, because there are so many provisions there that don't rhyme well with its principles. In fact, there are no consistent principles stated in the EU Constitution!
There seems to be some human right provisions there, but there are so many inconsistencies:
* How could it condemn and ban euthanasia? That is the right to die (in dignity) that it denied.
* How could they ban human cloning? That is the right to reproduce that it denied, and a big setback in science. Besides, how did that get sneak into the constitution without any public debate?
These are human rights to choose, i.e., freedom that it banned and denied! They are merely the “moral values” of some people, but that is not human right, did they not see that?
Most importantly, it did not respect or ensure any sovereignty rights of self-determination. It did not allow for the provision of opt-out in its principles, like the principle of opting out of adopting the Euro currency that it currently has. It only has the provision of winner-takes-all in majority rule, which really translates to dictatorship and forced acceptance of the majority opinion.
Of course, the Dutch and French voted it down for many other reasons, both from the left and from the right, from sovereignty issues to free-trade issues and labor-issues, but I just want to point out the academic issues of what a constitution should be theoretically.
In theory, a constitution should be simple document and succinctly spells out the principles in simple terms (from which all laws shall be based on and consistent with). It is not a law book or legislation. The politicians failed to realize this.
If there is an example, the US Constitution is only 2 pages long by design. That is precisely why it stands the test of time because it was written succinctly that spells out the principles only – nothing more and nothing less. The rest is left up to the legislation to implement it into laws, and left up to the judicial system to interpret whether such laws are consistent with the constitution. That is what a constitution should be, a good example. In contrast, many of the State’s Constitutions failed in this respect too, such as the Texas Constitution is the size of a phonebook, a bad example!
In theory, a constitution should be based on some basic principles – this is the “Preamble.” From these preamble principles, the constitution is derived. And from the constitution, the laws are created. (It’s like the axioms in math that all theories are derived. The axioms are self-evident.)
Comparing the preambles of the
UN Charter,
US Constitution and
EU Constitution, you will see the big difference, and why the EU Constitution failed. Its preamble is so poorly conceived, and I don’t think they know what it is trying to say there! The UN Charter explicitly spells out the respect for the sovereignty right of its member nations. The EU Constitution failed and disrespect this right.
Theoretically, a constitution should contain 2 parts: The declaration of principles and the charter of organization of the government. It failed in both counts. It’s so micro-managed that they are no longer principles and lost their purpose. There were no checks-and-balances in the system to ensure that it worked as design to prevent excessive power and abuse of the selected few.
[The US Constitution tackled this issue in two fronts: The independence and non-overlap in the triad of governance – the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, AND implemented the two-chamber system – the senate (with equal representation from all states, big or small), and the house of representative (with proportional representation based on population). That is one way to maintain the balance-of-power and prevent abuse by oversight, as well as equal AND proportional representation. The EU Constitution failed miserably in this without any checks-and-balances or oversight. It only has proportional representation but no equal representation by each member nation. This would horrify any political scientists to see such a half-baked piece of document!]
Democracy does not mean majority rules – a misconception of most people, including politicians. Democracy means the voice of the people and representation of the people and by the people. So minority does have a voice, just as much as majority. That’s why in US Supreme Court rulings, there are always the dissenting opinion that speaks for the opposition point-of-view, not just the prevailing majority opinion. This is true democracy – both majority and minority opinions count with equal representation as well as proportional representation.
I think the everyday common people see this through, except for the politicians, who I hope will wake up to this instead of keep sticking their heads into the sand.
