Nowadays, the legal order and the rule of law within the state system play a forefront role in the developed democracies. Undoubtedly, the notion of democratic state itself is closely associated with the high standards of legal system in it. However, in order to define what the high standards of legal system actually mean, it is important to answer the question what one would perceive as the real democracy. Although, we used to describe the democracy as the will or voice of majority in general terms, there are many more other factors of the modern democracies such as the separation of power, for instance. Based on this, we may assume that a constitution is a way of organizing all these into a single universal binding document to reach, and subsequently retain, those principles within a society. There is a broad concept that modern democracies cannot operate without a constitution to protect and implement democracy ...view middle of the document...
‘The hour of the lawyers’, as he stated that.
2. The creation of a market economy, including such irreplaceable elements of it as anti-monopolism, economic rivalry and free competition, on a par with increasing the social protection network.
3. Establishment of civil society – the development of significant sources of power outside the state and against it. This can be a network of autonomous institutions that are not centralised, and that a monopolistic state or party authority cannot eliminate.
According to Dahrendorf’s assumptions, which may be considered somewhat optimistic, the first stage can last six months, the second six years and the third around sixty years. Nevertheless, it must be noticed that constitutions are mainly drafted at and as a result of revolutions and upheavals. Those are mostly created based on the bad experience of past negative happenings, and implemented to avoid the same occurrences in the future. The drafters of the United States’ Constitution of 1787 were obsessed with the idea of avoiding monarchy and populist democracy. Another example of that is modern German constitution that was drafted with the fear of Nazism’s redevelopment and the negative memories of the failure of the Weimar Republic. Those examples partially prove the fact that negative experience is the force that may lay down a basis for new constitution, which in turn must eschew from the course of falling back. Similarly, East-European post-Soviet countries also wrote their constitutions bearing in mind their bad experience.
Yet, another important feature mostly given by the constitution is judicial review of power that has been developing throughout 250 years. At times of French Revolution, a judge Montesquieu called for the changes implying a strict separation of power. Generally, that meant to reduce the role of the court to that of the mouth of the law – bouche de la loi – subordinated to authority, with a judge as a state official, and centralizing the core of power in hands of the legislature.