Uruguay

Abstract

Abstract According to dogmatic literature on Uruguayan Constitutional history, one of its main characteristics is the link between the successive reforms of the Constitution and the corresponding agreements between the main political parties. This is confirmed by an analysis of the Uruguayan constitutional processes from the perspective of the theory of law and political science. This central feature, at the same time, relates to the institutional significance—manifest in reform processes—that political agreements between parties have had. The constitutional reforms of 1917, 1934, 1942, 1952, and 1966 were total reforms, each of which completely replaced the text of the previous constitution in place. The reforms approved in 1912, 1932, 1936–1938, 1942, 1989, 1994, 1996, and 2004, were, instead, partial in nature. As Uruguayan scholars correctly point out, all those reforms were supported by broad agreements among the main political parties. However, the facet I would like to stress is the specific power-sharing purpose of those agreements—that is, the agreements that motivated and guided reforms were directed to the quite express goal of co-participation of the main political parties in government. This is a descriptive chapter that addresses, in the first place, the Uruguayan constitutional evolution on the basis of the aforementioned central characteristic of that process (i.e. successive adjustments to the political parties’ power-sharing mechanisms) to, then, expose the central elements of the current Constitution under the same light.