Rugoz wrote:Some are.
But beyond the French case, there's still the question of what constitutes a big enough threat to the constitutional order such that the demands of protesters should overrule the legislative. And whether the demands should be backed by 'public opinion'. And who gets to decide all of that. Unless you think the threat of violence should speak for itself.
I think that more than
that, the real issue is how should Constitutions be amended.
Should there always be a direct question to voters? Or should this be just left to representatives? Or maybe it depends on whatever is being reformed, if not all Constitutional norms are equally important?
In Israel's case, there is no direct participation of the people. The Knesset is trying to amend the Basic Laws to concentrate power in its hands in what is already an unitary state (so local governments cannot effectively check the power of the central government of which the Knesset is part of), which is naturally suspect but could be acceptable if the voters agree to it.
It's not like the US, for example, where even though amendments don't have to be brought to the voters directly, the power of the states acts as a check so it is hard for a political party to get away with messing up with the system of checks and balances (even though I'm aware they could try to pack the SCOTUS).
It's also not like the cases where there have been Constitutional referenda, I assume you guys in Switzerland do get to vote your Constitutional amendments. Not that is a panacea, Venezuela is a basket case but I don't forget their Constitution was approved by the people directly - it's on them.
As for France, I don't think this is what protests are about. If they want to reform their Constitution to change their system of checks and balances, I think it would be more advisable to put it up for a vote given it is (like Israel, but far less justifiably) a centralized unitary state.