A democratic government should be restricted by law. That’s the main idea of constitutionalism. The procedures established to take social decisions in a constitutional democracy must respect some limitations, like fundamental rights. The logic of constitutionalism is the logic of the procedural.
The legitimacy (justice or fairness) of a procedure can be explained using the scheme proposed by Rawls. There are procedures whose results can be evaluated with reference only to the rules that define the procedure itself. Additionally, there are procedures that can be examined with regard to criteria external to them. In this paper I will the quasi-pure procedural approach that admits that is substantive (not procedural) criteria external to political procedures, like human rights principles, but these criteria and the demands that derives from these, can be justified and applied in very different ways or admit varying degrees of compliance.
The discourse of legal constitutionalism has put forward the pre-commitment argument to defend the constitutional rigidity of institutions and procedures as well as non-availability of rights.
In defending that position appears the re-commitment arguments that are related to the anthropological position that carries a pessimistic understanding of the nature of human beings maintains a strong presumption about individual and collective irrationality, which could lead to a pernicious majority.
However, against the logic of pre-commitment – the discourse of legal constitutionalism –, has emerged, some reasonable criticism from a normative political theory point of view, which present itself as an integral proposal, whose essential basis is the existence of reasonable disagreements and an anthropological understanding of the nature of human beings, which is opposed to the pessimistic conception.
Venezuela is one of the richest countries in natural resources in the world, one of the biggest in mines and the largest in proven reserves of hydrocarbons. Notwithstanding, it is paradoxically immersed in a terrible and complex humanitarian, political, economic and social crisis; maybe one of the worst worldwide.
This dramatic situation is the product of several factors, being one of the principal of them a massive, systematic and widespread corruption, which became a sort of “public policy”, with an almost total impunity, except for taking advantage of corruption prosecution (which in many cases just only reaches the imputation phase). This proposal, intends to analyze this unfortunate paradigmatic case, having in consideration not only the interaction and linkages between democracy and rule of law with corruption, but also the effects of this scourge against human rights, as well as its possible legal and judicial implications from this perspective.
Globalization is considered to have made nation-states lose, or are losing their “sovereign” character in national and international politics, due to the emergence of administrative political entities that are disputing this political power such as large companies (multinationals) or private corporations. In this sense, ¿How can be building a theoretical possibility of a global constitutionalism in non-state legal scenarios, based on the construction of a proposal for a mandatory protection, within the framework of Globalization? This paper aims to reflect on the possibilities of building this theory, having in account the relationship between democracy and constitutionalism, in the context of no state legal scenarios, global chains of supply or production, and big private corporations.