'Ambedkar's Constitution': A Radical Phenomenon in Anti-Caste Discourse?

During the last few decades, India has witnessed two interesting phenomena. First, the Indian Constitution has started to be known as ‘Ambedkar’s Constitution’ in popular discourse. Second, the Dalits have been celebrating the Constitution. These two phenomena and the connection between them have been understudied in the anti-caste discourse. However, there are two generalised views on these aspects. One view is that Dalits practice a politics of restraint, and therefore show allegiance to the Constitution which was drafted by the Ambedkar-led Drafting Committee. The other view criticises the constitutional culture of Dalits and invokes Ambedkar’s rhetorical quote of burning the Constitution. This article critiques both these approaches and argues that none of these fully explores and reflects the phenomenon of constitutionalism by Dalits as an anti-caste social justice agenda. It studies the potential of the Indian Constitution and responds to the claim of Ambedkar burning the Constitution. I argue that Dalits showing ownership to the Constitution is directly linked to the anti-caste movement. I further argue that the popular appeal of the Constitution has been used by Dalits to revive Ambedkar’s legacy, reclaim their space and dignity in society, and mobilise radically against the backlash of the so-called upper castes.

Dynamics of Constitutional Cultures

Although it has been claimed that we live in an age of constitutionalism, national and transnational constitutions neither appear as uniform models nor as uncontested means of setting the rules of the game in the political, economic, or religious domain. This book aims to convince readers of a cultural perspective on constitutions. Tying in with the research approach of the Käte Hamburger Center “Law as Culture”, the term “constitutional culture” evokes the multidimensional life of a constitution that cannot be restricted to its – though essential – textual normative provisions and authorized interpreters. Grasping the foundational force and societal influence of constitutions by means of cultural theory and analysis also calls for the investigation of narratives, symbols, rituals, materials, and places in which constitutions are framed and reproduced. With this objective in mind, the contributions to this volume, written by lawyers, sociologists, and political scientists, illuminate different dimensions of the cultural manifestation of constitutions as well as contemporary legal, political, and social struggles arising around their shape and range of influence in various regions of the world.

PLURALISMO JURÍDICO COMO ALTERNATIVA EPISTEMOLÓGICA PARA A CULTURA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS DESDE O CONTEXTO LATINO-AMERICANO

O debate sobre o pluralismo jurídico no contexto político e social latino-americano não é recente, de modo que suas percepções foram renovadas a partir do movimento neoconstitucionalista operado no continente, responsável por desencadear alternativas epistêmicas para se pensar a efetividade dos direitos humanos e dos direitos de cidadania, tudo a partir da lógica de emancipação social e descolonialidade, como possibilidade de rompimento com o constitucionalismo tradicional, de cunho conservador, hegemônico e colonialista. Em termos gerais, como uma das respostas à concepção juspositivista, o pluralismo jurídico surge como modelo de pensamento para a práxis dos direitos humanos, em face de uma sociedade na qual impera a lógica das exclusões concretas em contrariedade às inclusões abstratas. Dessa forma, tomando por base a abordagem bibliográfica, este trabalho propõe oferecer reflexões a respeito do atual estado da cultura de direitos humanos instalada na América Latina, com enfoque nas contribuições epistemológicas advindas da teoria críticados direitos humanos e do pluralismo jurídico wolkmeriano.Palavras-chave: Pluralismo jurídico. Direitos humanos. Cultura constitucional. América Latina. Teoria crítica dos direitos humanos.LEGAL PLURALISM AS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVE FOR THE CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS SINCE THE LATIN AMERICAN CONTEXTAbstractThe debate on legal pluralism in the Latin American political and social context is not recent, so that their perceptions were renewed from the neo-constitutionalist movement operated on the continent, responsible for triggering epistemic alternatives to think about the effectiveness of human rights and human rights of citizenship, all based on the logic of social emancipation and decoloniality, as a possibility of breaking with traditional constitutionalism, of a conservative, hegemonic and colonialist nature. In general terms, as one of the answers to the juspositivist conception, legal pluralism emerges as a model of thoughtfor the practice of human rights, in the face of a society in which the logic of concrete exclusions prevails in opposition to abstract inclusions. Thus, based on the bibliographic approach, this work proposes to offer reflections on the current state of human rights culture in Latin America, focusing on the epistemological contributions arising from the critical theory of human rights and legal Wolkmer’s pluralism.Keywords: Legal Pluralism. Human rights. Constitutional culture. Latin America. Critical theory of human rights.

A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic by Rohit De

This marvellous book by Rohit De flows from the meeting of two important aspects of Indian constitutional practice. First, the organization of the republic fashioned at independence as an instrument of socio-political change granting the state vast power over social, economic, and cultural activity. Second, a state organized to separate institutional powers and to protect individual freedom in order to check the runaway exercise of institutional power. In De's own words, the book is organised as a ‘dialectic between the Indian Constitution as “politics of state desire” and the Constitution as “articulating insurgent orders of expectations from the state.”’ Set against these tensions in Indian constitutional practice, through a set of detailed ethnographies, De foregrounds citizen efforts to defend rights and freedoms that have operated to deepen constitutional culture in the early years of Indian independence.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDONESIA

The existence of Constitutional Court becomes important as requisite for the rule of law principle and democracy in Indonesia. Amendment of the Constitution by Indonesia National Assembly has chosen to share judicial power held by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court with the authority to judicial review of legislation to the Constitution. The Constitutional Court as Guardian of the Constitution has its own role in establishing constitutional culture in Indonesia. Commitment to constitutionalism is adistinctive constitutional culture which will also develop the constitution itself. Commitment to UUD 1945 as the limitation to the powers and a guarantee of constitutional rights that must be protected by the Constitutional Court with the authority to review as the implementation of Indonesia constitutionalism. Constitutional culture discuss in this paper is focused on understanding constitutional culture which will affect the implementation of the constitution by "the formal institutions of the state", especially in relation to the citizenry. The Constitutional Court in review of the legislation to the constitution has used various methods of Constitutional interpretation to uphold the law and substantive justice. From several decisions seem that the constitutional interpretation made by the Constitutional Court was expanding the existing notions of UUD 1945 or event change the constitution. The Constitutional Court leads to judicial activism and can be said that the constitutional court has become super body. On the other side, presence of the Constitutional Court expected to complement the government system of Indonesia, in accordance with the function can motivate the performance of other state institutions, in this case the legislator in order to establish better legislation. Abstrak: Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi syarat penting bagi terwujudnya prinsip negara hukum dan demokrasi di Indonesia. Perubahan Konstitusi oleh Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat telah membagi kekuasaan kehakiman kepada Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan kewenangan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Penjaga Konstitusi memiliki peran tersendiri dalam membangun budaya konstitusi di Indonesia. Komitmen terhadap konstitusionalisme merupakan budaya konstitusi yang khas yang juga akan mendinamisasi konstitusi itu sendiri. Komitmen terhadap UUD 1945 sebagai pembatasan kekuasaan dan jaminan hak konstitusional yang harus dilindungi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan kewenangan pengujian sebagai implementasi konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Budaya konstitusi yang dibahas dalam tulisan ini fokus pada pemahaman budaya konstitusi yang akan mempengaruhi pelaksanaan konstitusi oleh "lembaga formal negara", terutama dalam kaitannya dengan warga negara. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menguji undang-undang terhadap konstitusi telah menggunakan berbagai metode penafsiran Konstitusi untuk menegakkan hukum dan keadilan substantif. Dari beberapa putusan tampak bahwa penafsiran konstitusi yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi merupakan perluasan dari pengertian UUD 1945 yang sudah ada atau bahkan mengubah konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi mengarah pada judicial activism dan dapat dikatakan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menjadi super body. Di sisi lain, kehadiran Mahkamah Konstitusi diharapkan dapat melengkapi sistem pemerintahan Indonesia, sesuai dengan fungsinya dapat memotivasi kinerja lembaga negara lainnya, dalam hal ini pembentuk undang-undang agar dapat membentuk peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih baik.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Penafsiran Konstitusi, Budaya Konstitusi

All Out of Proportion: The Ongoing Disagreement about Structured Proportionality in Australia

In 2015, a majority of the High Court of Australia incorporated structured proportionality testing into Australian constitutional law for the first time, but the test’s suitability for Australian law has been contested ever since. The recent case of Clubb is an ambivalent result for the test’s advocates: while structured proportionality testing now seems to have the support of a solid majority of current members of the High Court, the dissentients seem as strongly opposed as ever and continue to be vocal about the test’s unsuitability for Australian law. This article surveys the three main criticisms levelled against structured proportionality in Australia: that it is too indeterminate, that it involves judges transgressing the separation of powers, and that it is inappropriate in the unique context of the implied freedom of political communication (‘the freedom’). There are reasons why these critiques of structured proportionality carry particular weight and resonance in Australia’s constitutional culture, marked as it is by legalism and deference to the legislature. But these reasons are also why adoption of structured proportionality is consistent with Australia’s constitutional commitments and jurisprudence. The question of whether structured proportionality is beneficial needs to start with the question of ‘ compared to what?’ Many of the criticisms levelled against structured proportionality apply all the more forcefully against the prior test of whether the legislative measure is ‘appropriate and adapted’ to serve a legitimate end. And the inherent commitments of proportionality make it better suited to Australian law than the increasingly proposed alternative of a categorical approach. The particular method of judicial reasoning in cases concerning the freedom might seem like a highly abstract and theoretical question, especially when the justices applying differing methods largely agree on the merits in the relevant cases. But this continuing uncertainty and divergence on the Court has tangible costs. The project of making reasoning more transparent and constrained is significantly undermined by uncertainty as to whether and how the test will be applied at all. There are also second-order effects in the form of institutional costs. In the context of the freedom, where judicial review has long been controversial, the division of the Court into pro- and anti-structured proportionality factions has particularly high costs to institutional integrity and legitimacy. At some point there will be a question of whether the damage of warring judgments over method outweighs the damage done by choosing even the ‘worst’ of the available options. This article argues that structured proportionality is not that ‘worst’ option.

Constitutional Traditions, Institutions, Behavioral Prerequisites and Well-being of Countries

Well-being of countries depend on several factors. According to new institutional economics one of the main factors of national well-being is the level of institutional development. Drawing on econometric analysis, we prove this hypothesis and show that such indicators as constitutional culture, behavioral prerequisites and perception of institutions are indispensable for the well-being of a country. The paper presents various approaches to "measuring" these indicators and issues related to this.