Constitutional Reform as Process

Abstract

Constitutional politics as a research field is currently marked by a peculiar contradiction:1 On the one hand, processes of constitution-making and constitutional reform have abounded on a global scale at least since the post-1989 upheavals (von Beyme/Offe 1995; Merkel 1996; Merkel et al. 1996). On the other hand, there is a considerable dearth of solid empirical and comparative work on these processes, even though constitution-making and constitutional engineering are genuine subfields of political science. The verdict made by German constitutional-law scholar and Federal Supreme Court Justice Dieter Grimm in 1978, according to which German political science had not contributed much to the research on constitutional politics and reform up to that point, is still largely valid today, minor exceptions notwithstanding (Grimm 1994: 338ff.). Although a series of monographs, the bulk of which examine the so-called unification reforms, has been published in the meantime, there is no systematically comparative elaboration of the topic to date (Benz 1993; Batt 1996). From an international perspective, the state of research is strikingly similar. Jon Elster, for instance, just recently (1993: 174) observed that “[t]he comparative study of ordinary law making is a central field of political science. The comparative study of revolutions has a long history. But to my knowledge there is not a single book or even article discussing the process of constitution-making in a general comparative perspective. The gap is puzzling, but it appears to be undeniable.” KeywordsInstitutional ArrangementElectoral SystemPolitical CultureParty SystemReform ProcessThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.