…if you can change it at will?
I’ve been thinking for a while whether to write about the ongoing debate in Nigeria on changing the country’s constitution to allow President Obasanjo run for a third term. Here is what supporters of the move have to say:
“There are three reasons I want the president to stand again: the economy, stability and a united Nigeria, which he has been fighting for all his life,” says Njidda Gella, a pro-third term member of the House of Representatives.
“We have a mutilated constitution that requires amendment. We need to amend it for democracy to be sustained in Nigeria. President Obasanjo is not clinging to power; he’s trying to make Nigeria great.”
Opponents have their opinions as well:
“We have seen how tinkering with the constitution to allow for tenure elongation in some African countries led to sit-tight dictatorships,” he told supporters at a recent rally.
“This is exactly what is going to happen if you, the people, allow this constitutional amendment to pass through the national assembly.”
And more on the means:
We cannot today be amending a constitution in the manner [in which] Idi Amin amended the constitution of Uganda in the 60s. We cannot today be amending the constitution the way the late Emperor Bokassa amended the constitution of the Central African Republic.
What it comes down to is the concept of individual liberties and the role of constitutions. The role of constitutions, in short, is to set up the rules of the game for governments – the rules according to which a government will function. It has much to do with uncertainty and predictability – we can’t predict ahead of time how political agents will behave — see more on the ‘veil of ignorance’ from Buchanan — therefore, through constitutions, we introduce certain constraints to enable governments to function and, at the same time, to secure our liberties and prevent coercion or exploitation.
I recognize that nothing is static and the ergodic nature of the world (see Douglass North) means that institutions are constantly evolving, yet willingness of people to change constitutions is at times puzzling. For example, recent poll in Russia (in Russian) revealed that 66% of the people would in one way or another support amendments to the constitution to allow president to run for a third term. Note, President Putin has repeatedly said that he will not run for a third term. In Russia, as with the Nigeria example above, people cite today’s stability [political and economic] and lack of alternative candidates as the main reasons for supporting such a change. Overall, giving up some liberty for perceived stability and predictability is becoming a new reality of today’s world, and not just in developing economies.
Yet, where do you draw a line in these constitutional changes? Ask a business person – what good is a contract if another party can simply change the terms of the agreement? Again, constitutions are not written in stone, but do we really know ahead of time what will the changes bring? These are important questions to consider as we debate constitutional changes. In that regard, check out a more in-depth look at constitutional amendment process by Roger Congleton and Bjørn Erik Rasch. In his work, Congleton shows that stable and durable constitutions are related to higher levels of development. Now link stability and durability of a constitution to predictability of an environment within which people interact and apply an investor’s mindset to people’s decisions in daily life regarding work ethic, education, family, etc. Do you think people behave differently in more stable environments? Something to keep in mind.
Published Date: April 19, 2006