ABSTRACT. This article aims to delve into the reasons behind the plan to implement further constitutional amendments two decades after the last constitutional amendments in 1999–2002. The key question is whether it is necessary to carry out further constitutional amendments with two agendas: (1) to incorporate the State Policy Guidelines (PPHN) and (2) to extend the presidential term? This study employs doctrinal-qualitative approaches to answer the aforementioned research questions. It examines relevant laws, regulations, and doctrines to understand the main factors that contribute to the plan for constitutional amendment. This paper argues that while the inclusion of the two topics above in the constitution falls within the constitutional authority of the Consultative Assembly or Working Committees, the principles of constitutionalism and democracy must be considered. This paper contends that further constitutional amendments with the above objectives could lead to abusive constitutionalism if undertaken without a clear and legitimate purpose. This is because further amendments with these two agendas could be subjectively exploited by state institutions to gain more constitutional powers. The paper recommends three approaches to prevent abusive constitutionalism: incorporating an eternal clause, applying a basic doctrine structure, and involving civil society.

Keywords: abusive constitutionalism; unconstitutional constitutional amendments; judicial state order; state organs

How to cite: Sangdel, D., and Mesulam, D. (2024). “Abusive Constitutionalism: Comparative Analysis,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 16(2): 62–81. doi: 10.22381/GHIR16220243.

Received 13 November 2024 • Received in revised form 16 December 2024
Accepted 21 December 2024 • Available online 27 December 2024