Constitution: Supreme Law of a State
Introduction
In this section we will talk about the first concepts of Constitution, which move away from the modern term, but that allow the basis for their arrival to settle. To talk about the background, we must lead ourselves to the Eastern Mediterranean of the 4th century to.C., Specifically to Greece. Aristotle will refer to a large number of constitutions (not in a modern sense, but as a form of political organization) of the cities of the time or previous. It is worth highlighting the existence of other stronger political organizations than the Greek cities, such as Egypt, which had a very perfected administration.
Developing
These were based on autocracy and power held a single person. At this time we distinguish two criteria referring to the term "Constitution". The first can be considered the material, supported by the authors of the moment. This defined constitution how the necessary organization of the State in relation to the human being. This concept was already defended by joining the political, economic, social and legal sphere, many considered it as harmonious. Aristotle will defend this criterion, although in a slightly confusing way (as we will see below he also bet on the other way).
In one of his best known works, "politics", we observed how government and constitution confused, something that makes us think that the material criteria is wrong. In addition, it will use the concept "polytheia" to talk about the order of the polis, with all the laws and a series of elements that compose it (political, economic). The following criterion will be starring Plato but also by Aristotle. These authors are responsible for establishing the basis of modern constitutionalism by affirming that any government must be subject to the law these laws to a principle that a step above.
Plato believed in the beginning that the best way to govern would be that where a ruler had the ability to work better than the same law. However, it will begin to reculate and become more realistic, believing that if these rulers who speak fail to form correctly, the model that proposes will fail. From here he will believe in a law superior to everything else. Aristotle will differentiate all the common laws from a start from which they arise and by which they acquire validity. For Plato, this would be considered as "justice", while for Aristotle it will be called Constitución.
For the latter, these laws must be submitted or dominated by that principle, thus achieving being reasonable and egalitarian. In Rome, the term known by the Greeks will disappear, that is, it will cease to be conceived as a general principle to transform into a law that departed from the emperor. Previously, there were certain authors such as Cicero and Catón who defended two interesting positions. The first believed that the Constitution based the way of being of the people, although it also defended that: "The Constitution is not the work of a single man or a single era".
Stating that Rome was not in charge of creating it. The second believed that yes, that the Constitution is formed in the Roman Republic, but that not everyone can participate, since we must exclude the plebs, the enemies. We also find Polybio, who will defend that the Roman Republic will be the only one worthy of being called Constitution. He came to this conclusion due to his cyclical theory about societies, where he affirmed that all people followed this path: monarchy, government of the aristocrats and democracy. Polibio uses this theory to base his thesis, and, according to him, the Roman Constitution.
It is the only worthy because the powers are delimited and combined, while in the other societies at each stage the power resides in a different place. These three theories were very important during the stage of the Republic. From the appearance of the empire, it is when the idea mentioned 2 paragraphs begins to emerge, the concept of constitution under the assimilation of the emperor and therefore, the previous authors begin to fall into oblivion. This document was written by the prophet, Muhammad, in 622 d.C. In the city of Medina. It is true that it cannot be considered that its nature is constitutional.
Since we would be in front of a historical anachronism, it is a document that guaranteed a large number of principles that would hold the first constitutions as we know them. The agreement would guarantee religious freedom, the right to possess private property, mutual defense and solidarity between Muslim citizens and something very important and that is advanced in their time, equality before law and justice. This could lead to think of an organized state on those dates, but nothing is further from reality. At this time there was no state as such, but rather an Islamic community known as "Umma".
conclusion
This integrated a large number of military clans that decided to host Muhammad. The prophet would become a kind of leader and establish security pacts between all tribes and a series of solidarity standards for so much who believes in Muhammad and for whom he does not. All this would be collected by the same letter from Medina. As we have said, Muhammad would be a kind of referee or leader and try to watch over the whole. Something curious that we must highlight yes or yes, is that among some of these clans that supported the prophet, the Jewish religion was followed. This was one of the reasons why Muhammad preached in this document religious freedom.
Leave feedback