The idea of the constitution emerged as an attempt to rationalize the political arena by regulating the relations between rulers and the ruled.
This idea developed at the beginning of the modern era due to the profound and intertwined changes that the West witnessed in all fields to become one of the most important pillars of the emerging nation-state. Sovereignty of the people, enforcement of law, separation of powers and neutralization of religion.
In this regard, I argue that the idea of “overturning the constitution” is not modern, but rather an idea that has been well-known and documented by history, an idea that made the use of “legal and constitutional tools” essential inputs to overturning the constitutional document, and thus going towards the establishment of authoritarianism by weakening democracy as a result.
Given this fact, the democratic process, as a theoretical construct and a social system, constituted the most important creations of the political mind which, through the basis of the comprehensive contractual constitutional document, aims to organize individuals within different social contexts despite the multiplicity and diversity of their starting points and orientations, and also seeks to work on managing their political differences in order to Achieving the lofty goals of the state, which are mainly represented in achieving justice and achieving prosperity for citizens.
The democratic process, although it is based on the "constitution" mechanism and draws on its rules and principles, is broader and more comprehensive than that. The field of referral in “democratization” lies in defining their choices and the quality of their institutions. As for the premise of constitution, it is “a consensus on building rules, controls, and restraints regulating power and the behavior of its practitioners.” Hence the initial question arises: In the Arab world, does the "constitution-making" process really help us in saying that we are facing a democratic transition or a transition to democracy? Did the results of the discussions of drafting the Tunisian constitution, for example, contribute to resolving the current crisis, thus opening the way for the continuation of the democratic choice?
The intent here is to search beyond democracy, in the sense that democracy, in turn, does not escape from the cunning of the mind that created ideology, illusion and violence, or from the "utopia" that often produces exaggerated perceptions that confer holiness on democracy itself.
Also, these goals often penetrate patterns of different and conflicting rationalities, and forms of irrational tendencies that force the political mind, indeed political minds, to surrender to countless paradoxes when dealing with the concept of "democracy".
These differences and discrepancies in the perceptions and practices that are closely related to democracy have put the latter in a problematic dilemma. They made those interested in political affairs, whether they are theorists or practitioners of politics, aware of the difficulties that democracy suffers from, to the extent that it was possible to talk to them about “the problems of democracy.”
In this context, I stand here at the problem of “the purpose of political representation” and how it happens that the “representative of this general will” turns against the logic and basis of the same general will that finds the “constitutional contract” closest to representing it on the ground, which will constitute a new framework for the reproduction of the crisis. The same politician, and worse still, the “legitimacy crisis” is being reborn in the name of “legitimacy” itself.
In this regard, I argue that the idea of “overturning the constitution” is not modern, but rather an idea that has been well-known and documented by history, an idea that made the use of “legal and constitutional tools” essential inputs to overturning the constitutional document, and thus going towards the establishment of authoritarianism by weakening democracy as a result.
A necessary prelude
The modern perspective for the study and analysis of political systems is based primarily on the concept of “constitutionality,” and constitutionalism is what it means first as “a movement to build the state on a legal and institutional basis.” Describing the political system as “constitutional” means that the basis for classifying and defining the components of this system stems from the constitutional document. Basically on a central question “How is this system represented and manifested within the constitutional document”; and the term constitutionalism is nothing but a connotation and reflection of the idea of “contractualism”, which was the nucleus on which many of the political and constitutional systems of many modern countries were subsequently born, as it was the constraint that “Making the relationship between the ruler and the people based on some kind of controls and restrictions.”, the ruler is subject to it during the exercise of governance affairs and demands its implementation before the nation, and this represented a kind of popular and constitutional control over the ruler’s authority, although it was a weak and unstable control through which the rulers were able to implement, towards tyranny by power and aggression against the rights of the people.
In general, and by returning to the constitutional and political history, we record, at the first level, the succession of two conceptions of power; The conception of monarchy (with its levels: absolute monarchy and then constrained constitutional monarchy, up to the parliamentary form) and the conception of popular sovereignty, each of which led to the birth of a tradition that was sometimes expressed through political or administrative institutions and also through the persistence and dominance of a particular ideology. In this regard, an "authoritarian tradition" emerged about the exercise of power on the one hand, and a "liberal tradition" about the same exercise on the other. If it is clear that these two traditions are contradictory and opposing, they are nevertheless tightly integrated; This is reflected in the French model par excellence, as it embodied the originality and distinctiveness of the political foundations of French common law through the successful “marriage” of two traditions that originally seemed to be completely contradictory.
In addition to the two previous concepts (property and popular sovereignty), on the second level, in reality and in practice, a third conception appeared in another form of government known as "de facto governments" or "revolutionary governments", which will then take the form of "empire", a perception that "did not It is based in its reference and source, neither on “monarchy” nor on “popular sovereignty,” but rather on “the criterion of power” to extract political legitimacy, the matter is related to people who ascended the throne through “coup and force.” But what was new was that it was accompanied by “popular suffrage,” they are people They ruled by the methods of dictatorial regimes, and at the same time presented themselves as defenders of the principles of the revolution, and therefore considered themselves the "saviors and faithful" of the situations and crises experienced by the political system.Monarchie républicaine, but the description adopted by those who ruled under this system is imperial rule.
The French political model gives us a clear and clear idea of this third conception that established the birth of the concept of "coup against the constitution", so that France knows a unique and complex system that is difficult to define, because the system that was established during this period (the imperial era from 1799 to 1814 and from 1852 to 1870) in essence close to the features of the monarchy, but at the same time it has nothing to do with the royal family that ruled France before the revolution.
The coup against the constitution: towards what concept?
It is certain that the "coup" is not a scientific concept that can provide us with an explanatory model for the complex political phenomenon, as the "concept in the social sciences" is supposed to be, but rather it stands at the limits of the "term".
Thus, we say that “inversion” is adapted as a “term” and not in the scientific sense.
It is said "term" because it is used;
That is, it is agreed upon in naming phenomena and things.
The term "coup", in the political sphere, at its first level, means "overthrowing the authority", and does not mean "overthrowing the regime", meaning a coup by circles of the regime against other circles of the same regime, by unconstitutional means. The most important element, here, is that one of the regime's organs or components turns against the ruler. Often the goal of a coup is to gain power, not to change the regime. Here, the term “coup” differs from the term “revolution,” which is often a “widespread popular movement from outside the regime to change the regime.” In some cases, the “coup” may reach the level of “revolution” when moving to change the political system with popular support ( As happened, for example, in the officers’ coup in 1952 in Egypt).
On the other hand, if it is natural, at this first level, for the coup to be military, then the party capable of overthrowing the authority from within the regime is the army, or at least the security apparatus; On a second level, another interpretation of the term “coup,” which I call here, “the constitutional coup,” is proposed, and by some, “the coup against the constitution,” often taken in ways that may seem at first sight acceptable and legitimate; Indeed, its owner may enjoy popular support before he reaches power, in order to reach the authoritarian, authoritarian result by imposing a new constitution.
Among the most important examples of the phenomenon of "the coup against the constitution", following the approach of General Bonaparte, who led the coup of 18 Brumaire against the constitution of the third year of the First Republic, which was known as the Constitution of 5 Frectedore, we find Prince President "Louis Napoleon Bonaparte" who did not hesitate to exploit the circumstances Basically, the French Second Republic was experiencing the problem of “restricting the right to vote”, as he would present himself as a defender of universal suffrage, and then would dissolve the National Assembly and the Council of State and abolish the constitution of the Second Republic after the people called for a referendum in order to give him the right to draft a new constitution in an attempt to legitimize On the "constitutional coup" that he carried out, which opened the wide door for him to establish the second empire.