A TALE OF TWO CONSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter tells us how important is a constitution to a country, for example the institution
and constitution formed in north USA gave incentives to people there while it was the opposite
in case of Mexico, and this gave birth to the great divergence in both countries future.

SUMMARY

It is not a coincidence that United states, and not Mexico, adopted and enforced a constitution
that supported democratic principles. There was a stark difference between the constitutional
process that happened in USA and Mexico. In early 1880, Napoleon Bonaparte’s French armies
invaded Spain and by the end they had captured the Spanish king Ferdinand.

After this in the fight against the French by a national Junta, the Junta was able to create a
constitution called Cortes. It made Cádiz constitution, which called for constitutional
monarchy. The constitution demanded end of special privileges and introduction to equality
before law.

As the Spanish rule was challenged at many places new Juntas were formed by Latin
Americans, slowly they started sensing the possibility of being free of the oppressive Spanish
rule. In Mexico on the other hand the revolutions was violent. This revolution was led by Father
Miguel Hidalgo in 1810, it was more of an ethnic warfare, the revolutionaries indiscriminately
killed the white people, which was opposed by all the elites. From the locals to the Mexicans
elites, all rejected its legitimacy.

After the fall of Napoleon’s empire in 1815, king Ferdinand returned to power and the Cádiz
constitution was abrogated. But his rule did not last long due to a mutiny which forced him to
restore an even more radical Cortes. It demanded complete abolishing of all forms of labour
coercion. It also attacked the special privileges given to elites.

The constitution of United states took a different path in creating a democracy, in the southern
America voting rights were mostly given to only those who owned property or hard a minimum
certain amount of income. No state gave women or labours any such rights. There was initial
conflict of view between northern and southern states, but this was resolved by certain
compromises. This kept going on until civil war occurred in which north prevailed. After this
the instability in the country stated going away.
The situation in Mexico at this time was very different, the instability was there for nearly 50
years. In between 1824 to 1867 itself had about 52 presidents. Such instability led to severe
weakening of Mexican state.

We come to know the motivation behind making Mexico independent was to protect the set
of institutions that were created by the colonial rule, These institutions blocked the incentives
and initiatives of the greater mass of the population. As this was not present in United states it
went under great development (industrial revolution).

Case study (HUNGARY)

We take the case of Hungary, a country part of the European union, how it’s democracy is
being affected by the recent changes in the constitution which raises many warnings. Recently
a border fence was constructed along the Hungarian side by the order of Prime Minister Viktor
Orbán, who had sold it to the public as Hungary’s first line of defence against an “invasion” of
asylum seekers during a massive surge in migration to Europe. The country has also outraged
the idea of free press, for any media coverage one has to apply for a permit which is nearly
impossible to get. This is not a requirement you’d expect in a European democracy. Prime
Minister Orbán has chipped away at the foundations of Hungarian democracy. It has been
replaced with an authoritarian regime that uses the law as a weapon; the country is governed
by rules like the border journalism permits, regulations that can seem reasonable on their face
but actually serve to undermine essential democratic freedoms. In 2010 Viktor Orbán won a
“constitutional majority”, necessary to rewrite the constitution by parliamentary vote, hence
changes were made, Fidesz allies were installed in vital roles, like election supervision.
Hungary’s state broadcaster was brought under the control of a new media board. The new
constitution also expanded the size of the country’s constitutional court, which decides whether
laws passed by parliament are constitutional. Orbán filled the new seats with Fidesz loyalists.
All judges over the age of 62 were also forced to retire, so their seats could be filled with even
more Fidesz-friendly jurists. European leaders have only recently woken up to the threat
Hungary poses.

Hungary is a warning of what could happen when a ruthless, anti-minority populist backed by
a major political party is allowed to govern unchecked.
In the figure below we get to see how the govt. of Hungary has constructed a fence and how it
plans to further develop it. Which has been sold to public as protection from the “invasion” of
asylum seekers during a massive surge in migration to Europe.

Fences built and planned for future by the oppressive government.

Sources

Vox media- Article by Zack Beauchamp. (https://www.v ox.com/policy-and-

politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-democracy-authoritarianism-trump)

BBC world:- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45498514

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21748878
Foreign affairs:- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-
democracy-authoritarianism-trump