Introduction

We use the term “constitution” in a variety of ways. Probably the oldest use was that applied to someone who was in good stead, who could do the things he or she wanted and was able to handle the concomitant physical problems, such as fatigue and exertion. This usage points to a further implication. We can speak of such a constitution only if all the bodily parts fulfil their functions properly. Here architectural and functional biological metaphors often overlap, such as in the notion of “weight” and “counterweight,” familiar from “republican” political theory, or from some realist thinking. However, the roots of the term both in nature and in action transcend simple functional or design associations, and also place the concept in a historical and practical context. The latter point is driven home by the famous Aesopian fable of the quarrels among the different parts of the body that go on strike. They refuse to feed the “idle” stomach while they are doing all the work. Of course, very soon they had to realize that without digestion they would wither away.

That fable supposedly ended one of the constitutional crises of early Roman history, when the plebs had moved to a different hill and refused to cooperate with the nobles. It later became one of the important lessons to be understood by all if the “body politic” was to flourish. Similarly, Aristotle’s teachings about the advantages of mixed forms of government and his collection of dozens of different constitutions – well exemplified by his Constitution of Athens and the references in his Politics – subordinated abstract “design” questions to an assessment of what actually “works,” given the social compositions of the “the people” (politeuma), and the different political traditions. He thereby emphasized the problematic nature of an “ideal theory” that attempts to derive everything from assumptions about human nature. Since there is always a gap between the “good man” and the “good citizen” – the latter depending on the particular form of regime – the dangers of revolution (stasis) in a polis can only be banned when people accept a constitutional arrangement that incorporates the various accepted notions of justice and that provides for the pursuit of common political projects.