3 Rigid and Flexible Constitution

Flexible: amendable by the ordinary legislative process (same majority, same procedure as any statute) — the UK tradition: "the constitution can be changed as a coat is changed," each Parliament sovereign. Merits: adaptability, democratic responsiveness. Demerits: fundamentals exposed to transient majorities; instability if politics is volatile.Rigid: amendable only through a special, harder procedure — supermajorities, special bodies, referenda, ratification by units. Exemplars: the USA (two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states — only 27 amendments in over two centuries); India (simple majority for listed matters, special majority for most, plus ratification by half the states for the federal features — "quasi-federal" amendment design); Nepal (Article 274): amendment bills on the Constitution's fundamentals must be published for public perusal; ordinary amendments pass by two-thirds ofthe existing members of both houses; bills altering provincial boundaries or Schedule-6provincial powers must first obtain the consensus of the concerned provincial assembly (a majority of provincial assemblies rejecting kills the bill); and Article 274(1) places Nepal's self- rule, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the people's sovereignty beyond amendment altogether.Merits of rigidity: stability and predictability; protection of minorities and federal bargains; deliberation forced upon constitutional change. Demerits: risk of obsolescence (the constitution ages while society moves — change then happens through interpretation or evasion); a "cordon sanitaire" against needed reform can itself provoke extra-constitutional change (revolution…