Why everyone’s changing their constitutions

Some things, like the Rosetta Stone or the Madrid-Barcelona rivalry, are written in stone. Others, like Italy’s wartime alliances, are very much open to adjustment.

It turns out more constitutions fall in that second bucket right now, so let’s take a tour through some intriguing constitutional tweaks, starting with…

• 🇰🇵 North Korea 

Local dictator Kim Jong Un pushed through a series of changes to North Korea’s constitution this week. It feels a bit like Al Capone updating the neighbourhood suggestions box, but two elements of this particular performance stand out:

One emphasises that the State Affairs Commission chair (aka Kim himself) has sole authority over North Korea’s nukes, though he can delegate whenever needed. Why?

• It elevates Kim’s control from political norm to legal bedrock, and
• It constitutionally guarantees nuclear retaliation if anyone tries to pull a decapitation-strike against him (à la Maduro).

The other edit scrubs any reference to eventual unification between the autocratic North and the free South, for the first time since they split in 1948. Lest there be any doubt, the text even spells out that North Korea borders China, Russia, and South Korea. Why?

It’s arguably the North’s biggest ideological U-turn since 1948, and might serve two aims:

• First, by locking in his 2024 policy shift from ‘the South is a wayward sibling’ to ‘the South is an enemy state’, he can justify his iron grip back home. But also…
• Second, by renouncing any claim over the South, maybe Kim is effectively saying, “we’re not coming for your turf, so don’t tread on ours”.

Now jet over the Chosŏn Tonghae (DPRK’s name for the Sea of Japan) to…

• 🇯🇵 Japan 

When you think of Japan, protests aren’t exactly the first thing that comes to mind. You’re thinking of France. And yet on Sunday’s Constitution Memorial Day (May 3), some 50,000 folks gathered to signal opposition to any proposed changes to Japan’s 1947 constitution.

Mostly US-written during Japan’s post-WWII occupation, the text has a unique pacifist clause (Article 9) which declares, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation”, adding that “land, sea, and air forces… will never be maintained”.

Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party has wanted to ease that article ever since the party’s 1955 founding, but it was really the late PM Shinzo Abe who a) brought the idea into the mainstream, and b) linked it to China’s current expansionism and re-armament.

As we flagged, Abe’s protégé and Japan’s current leader (Takaichi) now wants to amend Article 9 to name-drop Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and the need for limited self-defence.

Those in favour point not just to China, but a more equivocal US ally. Opponents, however, argue the pacifist clause is an inalienable feature of modern Japan that enhances the country’s security by keeping it out of confrontations.

Both are legitimate perspectives in any free society. But guess which perspective some of Japan’s autocratic neighbours eagerly amplify?

Anyway, if Japan just wants a few edits, some folks want a full rewrite over in…

• 🇵🇱 Poland 

Last Sunday (the anniversary of Poland’s old 1791 constitution), Warsaw’s semi-ceremonial president (Nawrocki) appointed a council to work towards a new constitution.

His argument? The current 1997 document creates rival power centres (president vs PM), leading to chronic gridlock. So he wants a new constitution ready by 2030.

Guess what else is happening in 2030? His own presidential re-election campaign. And guess which role (president or PM) he thinks should be stronger? Hah.

The populist president’s centrist rival, Prime Minister Tusk, is dismissing it all as a “political game”, noting Nawrocki lacks the two-thirds majority for any constitutional amendments. But it’ll probably help Nawrocki keep firing up his base for now (he’s also calling for a September referendum on EU climate policies).

And speaking of entirely ~new constitutions… 

• 🇦🇲 Armenia 

Yerevan has had a new draft constitution since at least March, but it’s not yet public. Why? Maybe they’re quibbling over those commas, or maybe it’s next month’s elections, the first since rival Azerbaijan seized the ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

A core part of their US-mediated peace involves Armenia changing its constitution to renounce any claim over Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-West PM Pashinyan is no doubt wary it’s a tough sell for his people, so seems to be slow-walking until after election day.

Intrigue’s Take

Comedian Jim Jefferies has a funny line about someone insisting, “you can’t touch the second amendment!”, to which he responds: “Yeah you can. That’s why they call it an ‘amendment’!” We’re chuckling here, not to amble onto the minefield of US gun laws, but to recall that even the semi-sacred founding constitutions of a superpower can change.

And that’s what we’re seeing this week: rising pressures — threats, rivalries, build-ups — all translating into domestic urgency to update the rulebook. Whether it’s Kim Jong-un formally burying the reunification pipedream, or Japan debating whether pacifism still equals safety, or Armenia slow-walking a painful concession, the message is the same: maybe that document from last century (or last millennium) is no longer fit-for-purpose?

The catch, of course, is that rewriting the rules is never neutral. Sure, done right, it can edify and unify a generation. Done wrong, it polarises and weakens a nation. The deciding factor tends to be the calibre of leadership, and right now? This feels like a mixed bag.

Sound even smarter:

• Here’s a useless fun fact: both Poland and Japan celebrate their constitution day on 3 May. You are so welcome.