But already, pressures are growing to include more minorities, women, and opposition voices. The military has pledged to hold a full public discussion and a referendum on changes in advance of elections.
Inclusion, notes Mr. Reynolds, can help prevent disgruntled parties who might seek to destabilize the new government. In Tunisia, he says, the regime was swept away, so it does not need to be represented. But in Egypt’s case, he says, the military still matters, despite having been a part of Mr. Mubarak’s regime. “Those [constitutions] that didn’t succeed – exclusion is the core principle,” he says.
Experts advise against letting a ruling party or leader tinker with the state’s basic architecture. Critics allege that Venezuela’s 1999 “Bolivarian Constitution” was little more than an enabling device for Hugo Chávez. Three Communist Party-authored constitutions in the USSR did little more than paper over glaring oppression with high-sounding platitudes. “A constitution in Soviet times was like a portrait on the wall. It flattered the leaders but was useless as a guide to real life,” says Nikolai Petrov, an analyst with the Carnegie Center in Moscow.
