article Francesc de Carreras, professor of constitutional law at the UAB, published in La Vanguardia.
A constitution is, above all, a framework of coexistence for the present and a framework of trust in the future.
to its twenty-fifth anniversary, two years ago, the day of the Constitution had a ritual character, hardly newsworthy or controversial hint: they evoked the broad consensus that approval is remembered their principles and are used to make a generally positive assessment of its development.
The commemoration was always a pause in the heat of political battle, an encounter in which the parties suspended their daily squabbles natural to reaffirm, year after year, their match in the solidezde the main rules of our democratic life. It is no longer the case. In the twenty-seventh anniversary we celebrated this week, the Constitution has become a disputed issue and our constitutional future uncertain. Perhaps there was a latent distrust of citizens in our constitutional system that, for whatever reason, not surfaced and now, suddenly, has burst onto the scene. Maybe. But I rather am inclined to think that the reason the Constitution is questioned is reckless in the way put at the heart of partisan confrontation. A constitution has been repeated a thousand times, is a framework, a playing field, which should allow all citizens and all political forces to express their preferences and implementing them. Furthermore, in accordance with the democratic principle that sovereignty resides in the people, the Constitution itself can be reformed, even in its entirety.
But constitutions are supreme standards which are characterized by stability and changes must be made only if essential. Therefore, the argument that social change must be reflected immediately on constitutional changes does not seem right. Indeed, the constitutional changes should be made only if the text of the Constitution prevents social change can be regulated by laws or other rules of lower rank. Ordinary legislation is the natural field to adapt to new social realities on the right.
The main function of a constitution is to give unity and stability to the legal system, not in your own text to include the regulation of social change. Typically, therefore, must be that the political disputes occur in the field of ordinary legislation, not in the field of constitutionality, however, at present, the main inter-party confrontation is not between the legitimate goals can be achieved within the marcoconstitucional, but has become a matter of confrontation with the constitutional framework itself. That is, using a sports metaphor, what is at the forefront of the dispute Not the way to score more goals in a game, but the rules by which these goals can be considered valid.
We are not therefore in a phase of political normalcy, but in a phase of rethinking the rules of the game. There is no doubt that all this is legal and constitutionally legitimate, democratic right because, as we have said, can not prevent changes in the rules.
however, doubtful whether such changes as are being developed, are politically expedient. Many questions, too many doubts, fit. On the contrary, there are many reasons to think that all this dispute is unnecessary, superfluous and risky from point of view of general interest. And according to the result to be reached, their drivers are at risk of being branded as irresponsible and even frivolous. Because, indeed, the end result may be pyrrhic. The ongoing reforms are of two types: the statutory and constitutional properly. Leaving aside the ratification referendums, the parliamentary majority must agree Uncas are different and in another: in the statutory just the majority of Congress (half plus one of the deputies), and lasconstitucionales requires a qualified majority of two-thirds in Congress and the Senate, as well as complex unprocedimiento involves dissolving of both houses, new elections and a new vote for the same majority.
Moved to the current political situation, all supposed to approve the statutory reforms mathematically not need the agreement of the PP and to approve constitutional amendments to vote for them is essential. Given the current political situation, can we think that both types of reforms can be carried out at once? Zapatero included in its program of constitutional reform government, but no rejection, no clearly agreed with the bylaw. If both are, in practice, because the majority required, incompatible, why what reforms will tilt the Prime Minister? There is concern in English society. A constitution is, above all, a framework of coexistence for the present and a framework of trust in the future.
The uncertainty about these changes fully justify the concern. Felipe Gonzalez said this week that perhaps the Government's error has been to undertake a reform program without having set a precise direction. Perhaps you've been right: the old rockers sometimes give some memorable performances.
0 comments:
Post a Comment