The country hasn’t developed along fascist, authoritarian or dictatorial lines – but one wonders to what extent this would be viable in India anyway given the huge centrifugal forces that operate on a sub-national basis.

To what extent is the constitution responsible for anything that has happened, rather than the result of a natural – and rather chaotic – development of a system set in place virtually in toto at Independence. This applies most obviously to institutions like the Civil Service. It would also apply to religion/secularism – which seems to me to owe much more to an uneasy co-existence where there are (religious) minorities of any significant size, aided in recent years by general rise in prosperity. The 2004 elections seemed to owe more to a general desire to ‘kick the bums out’ and a Congress Party that managed to keep their infighting down to a dull roar rather than any sort of vote for secularism.

This is just so much pious – and possibly nationalistic – cant.

I think there are a lot of models out there, and the evidence is largely positive if we look at the experience of countries like New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Ok not positive in every way but broadly.

I think a constitution can, in this case, have other advantages, which are vital to build a sense of solidarity around a political document. Not unlike how the Americans have it. But we’d have to commit to it pretty strongly, rather than slip it in quietly by stealth, like the European Convention on Human Rights

I suspect that the political actors making political decisions at that political gathering may not be totally devoid of the politician-nature.

IS our existing constitutions is it not?!

That’s the difference between us and countries with the Napoleonic Code, n’est pas?

The only thing we can be sure of is any constitution drawn up by our politicians will ensure power is moved further away from the people.

Or, to paraphrase modern political parlance, we’ll be given the opportunity to “vote until we get it right”.

So – we have to draw it up via a citizens’ convention.

Bleh’s definition (25) that “everything is permitted unless specifically forbidden” would be very nice. But, breaking news!, it applies to the state not to Bleh: not having a codified constitution, or signing up to the EU charter of fundamental rights means that the Executive is permitted to anything it wants unless specifically forbidden by…. Bleh? All of us? hence detention without trial etc etc.

Feral Republic more like…

That’s not how the historically anglo-saxon unwritten constitution works – rather, we grant the state (which has no legitimacy anyway without the express will of the people) the power to uphold certain restrictions upon our personal selves for the good for all.

I don’t need no constitution to tell me as a free Briton (I do qualify as one of those, just), I have freedom to speech, association, employment, belief and so on – that is inherent, i.e. everything is permitted unless specifically forbidden. Compared that to the aforementioned Napeolonic style consitution, where everything is forbidden unless permitted according to the state.

That’s my big worry about a written constitution.

I’m a monarchist by default – I don’t particularily care for a bunch of inbred nincompoops that make up the current heirs to the throne, but when the alternative is a President Prescott, for example, then I’m with Lizzy 100% of the time.

Am no fan of the Royals or of monarchy in the first place but they do mean an awful lot to many people in this country and in a time of social/cultural uncertainty I think that jettisoning centripedal forces such as the Monarchy is a inherently bad idea.

Or, to paraphrase modern political parlance, we’ll be given the opportunity to “vote until we get it right”.

Lamping, not getting lamped.

Damn, that’s just hostile and aggressive, I don’t know how to do feisty.