Constitutions…in Dictatorships?

<div id="stcpDiv" style="position: absolute; top: -1999px; left: -1988px;">“What is the difference,” went an old joke in the Soviet Union, “between the Soviet and U.S. Constitutions? The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech; the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom <em>after </em>speech.”&nbsp; The joke captures the common intuition about the function (or <em>dysfunction</em>) of constitutions in authoritarian regimes. Many other examples abound: citizens of North Korea might be surprised to learn that they are guaranteed rights to free speech, assembly, and association. If citizens of Niger could even read their constitution (the adult literacy rate is under 30%), they would learn that it guarantees each citizen the right to health and education, even though the country ranks 182^nd out of 182 countries rated by the Human Development Index.&nbsp; Authoritarian constitutions, in short, are sham constitutions. - See more at: http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2014/05/constitutionsin-dictatorships/#sthash.BhF1srUo.dpuf<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“What is the difference,” went an old joke in the Soviet Union, “between the Soviet and U.S. Constitutions? The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech; the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom <em>after </em>speech.”&nbsp; The joke captures the common intuition about the function (or <em>dysfunction</em>) of constitutions in authoritarian regimes. Many other examples abound: citizens of North Korea might be surprised to learn that they are guaranteed rights to free speech, assembly, and association. If citizens of Niger could even read their constitution (the adult literacy rate is under 30%), they would learn that it guarantees each citizen the right to health and education, even though the country ranks 182^nd out of 182 countries rated by the Human Development Index.&nbsp; Authoritarian constitutions, in short, are sham constitutions.</span></div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG ></o> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG ></o> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> <p><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“What is the difference,” went an old joke in the Soviet Union, “between the Soviet and U.S. Constitutions? The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech; the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom <em>after </em>speech.”&nbsp; The joke captures the common intuition about the function (or <em>dysfunction</em>) of constitutions in authoritarian regimes. Many other examples abound: citizens of North Korea might be surprised to learn that they are guaranteed rights to free speech, assembly, and association. If citizens of Niger could even read their constitution</span>v(the adult literacy rate is under 30%), they would learn that it guarantees each citizen the right to health and education, even though the country ranks 182^nd out of 182 countries rated by the Human Development Index.Authoritarian constitutions, in short, are sham constitutions.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><div>[toc hidden:1]</div>
Read the full article here: Cambridge Blog