Detangling Knots in the Narratives: A Response to Theunis Roux

In his insightful paper, Theunis Roux argues that there are two dominant narratives about the constitutional transitions in India and South Africa. The Liberal Progressivist Narrative (“LPN”), understands these constitutions as the application of Western liberal ideas to the context of the global South. The repurposing of universally valid (but of Western origin) liberal constitutionalism to serve the interests of the global south does involve some development and innovation, but these departures represent differences of degree not of kind. Reliance on liberal constitutional ideals and devices in framing post-colonial non-Western constitutions is legitimate because – to borrow from Alexander Hamilton - Indians and South Africans adopted variations of liberal constitutionalism by ‘reflection and choice … not accident and force.’ They exercised political/intellectual agency and sovereign will in making these ideas, values and institutions work for their circumstances. Thus, these constitutions are legitimate both because of their adherence to ‘universal’ reason, as well as their authorization by popular will. Where these constitutions do not work as intended, they can be changed through incremental means routed through constitutionally approved institutional channels such as constitutional amendments and judicial (re-) interpretations.