Document Type : Research Paper
Author
PhD, Department of Public Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran.
Abstract
Research Problem and Background
The constitution, as the foundational covenant of political order, has always been the site of a major confrontation between two predominant approaches in defining the limits and duties of the state: The neutrality-based (or rights-based) approach, which, grounded in the protection of individual rights, freedoms, and autonomy, confines the state's duty to securing the "right" (justice, security, public interests); and the perfectionist approach, which prioritizes the "good" (a specific conception of the desirable life and human flourishing), assigning the state a mission beyond providing material interests, making it responsible for the ethical guidance and cultivation of citizens toward perfection. The emergence of the modern constitution through liberal-democratic revolutions was based on the separation of the "right" (justice) from the "good" (virtue), the distinction between the public and private spheres, and reliance on constituent power (popular sovereignty) and individual rights. However, some contemporary systems, by incorporating specific conceptions of the good life (with religious or philosophical character) into their constitutions, have adopted a perfectionist approach. This raises the central question: Is such an approach compatible with the foundations of the public sphere (as the legitimacy-bestowing realm in democratic theories) and the requirements of the modern constitution? Relying on the ideas of Jürgen Habermas, the prominent social philosopher, this article analyzes this conflict.
Research Objective
The primary objective of this article is to analyze the relationship between perfectionist constitutions and the possibility of realizing the public sphere in its Habermasian sense. The author seeks to demonstrate that incorporating perfectionist foundations and ends into a constitution not only conflicts with the rights-based and autonomous foundations of the modern constitution but also, due to the merging of the public and private spheres and the negation of pluralism, theoretically and practically precludes the realization of the public sphere. Therefore, the article's ultimate conclusion is to prove the impossibility of the public sphere within political systems based on perfectionist constitutions.
Research Method
This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library resources (Persian and English books and articles). The methodology is based on conceptual and comparative analysis. First, the key concepts of the "public sphere," "discourse ethics," and "perfectionism" are explained and examined by referring to the ideas of Habermas and other thinkers. Subsequently, the foundations of the modern constitution and the requirements of constitutional perfectionism are investigated. Finally, by comparing and evaluating the principles of these two domains, their relationship and the consequences of this conflict are analyzed.
Findings of the Research
The research findings are presented in several main areas:
Foundations and Function of the Habermasian Public Sphere: The public sphere is an intersubjective realm, independent of the state and the private sphere (market and family), in which free and equal citizens, in a space free from coercion and based on rational discourse and argumentation, discuss and deliberate on public matters. The output of this discursive process (norms and public opinion) influences the political system through institutions like parliament, bestowing rational legitimacy upon it. In Habermas's thought, the legitimacy of law and the political system is not intrinsic but discursive, dependent on its continuous confirmation by this sphere. Discourse ethics, with conditions such as freedom, equality, universal participation, and the exclusion of exclusion, specifies the procedural framework of this realm.
Foundations of the Modern Constitution: The modern constitution is founded upon individual rights, autonomy (private and public), the constituent power of the people, and the separation of right from good. Justice (the right) belongs to the public sphere (regulating social relations), and the good life (the good) belongs to the realm of private individual choice. The modern state, in its ideal form, is neutral towards diverse conceptions of the good, providing only a legal framework for the peaceful coexistence of these plural conceptions.
Nature and Consequences of Perfectionism in the Constitution: The perfectionist approach, with the primacy of the good over the right, seeks to obligate the state to guide society towards a specific "good life" (often derived from a religious or philosophical ideology) by defining it. In constitutions, this leads to the reduction of rights within the framework of that conception of the good and the transformation of the state into a societal tutor. The perfectionist state considers itself to possess "absolute truth" in recognizing human flourishing and deems itself responsible for its practical realization.
Fundamental Conflict: The article's analysis reveals a structural and irreconcilable conflict between the foundations of constitutional perfectionism and the requirements of the public sphere:
Negation of Pluralism and Freedom: Perfectionism, by insisting on a single narrative of the good, disregards or rejects ethical pluralism (a necessary condition for the public sphere).
Merging of Spheres: By introducing the "good" into the realm of public legislation, this approach dissolves the fundamental distinction between the public sphere (right/justice) and the private sphere (good/virtue).
Negation of Autonomy and Equality: By defining citizens based on adherence to the ruling ideology, the intrinsic equality of participants in discourse and their individual autonomy are called into question. Having a right is reduced to being right (in accordance with the model of virtue).
Elimination of the Public Sphere: Under these conditions, the public sphere either does not form at all, or if it does, it is immediately absorbed and dissolved into the state sphere (which considers itself the embodiment of truth and the good). Instead of being supervised and influenced by the public sphere, the state legislates comprehensively across all spheres of life.
Crisis of Legitimacy: By eliminating the public sphere as the continuous source of legitimacy-bestowal, the political system based on a perfectionist constitution faces a legitimacy crisis, as it cannot genuinely reflect the free will and discursive participation of the people.
Conclusion
This article concludes that the possibility of realizing the public sphere in its Habermasian sense within the framework of perfectionist constitutions does not exist. Incorporating perfectionist concepts into the modern constitution creates an internal contradiction, as it places the rights-based and autonomous structures of the modern constitution in the service of an end inherently opposed to its foundations (separation of right from good, state neutrality, pluralism). This not only leads to the reduction of individual rights and the negation of autonomy but also, by merging the public sphere into the state and erasing the private/public boundaries, disables the sole rational and discursive source of legitimacy in complex modern societies. Therefore, the public sphere, which guarantees the dynamism, accountability, and legitimacy of constituted political systems, is doomed to impossibility within the perfectionist approach to constitutionalism. This research demonstrates that attempts to synthesize these two paradigms will come at the cost of losing one of them (primarily the public sphere and discursive democracy).
Keywords
Main Subjects
)