Book Launch: Defending the Political Constitution

On Monday, 23 March 2026, the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC) organised a panel event to celebrate the launch of Defending the Political Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2026), authored by Professor Richard Bellamy (UCL Political Science, GCDC).

Opening the discussion, Professor Bellamy explained that the book builds on his earlier Political Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, 2007) by responding to academic critiques, by clarifying the degree to which a political constitution creates a legal constitution, and by addressing real-world challenges. He explained how a political constitution is located in the character and design of the political system and the modus operandi of its component political processes. All polities will have both a political and a legal constitution, though these can take very different forms. However, Professor Bellamy’s main argument is that the legal constitution, including one that operates as higher law and is upheld by a supreme or constitutional court, is only as legitimate and effective as the underlying political constitution. Professor Bellamy then provided an outline of the book’s structure. He highlighted Chapter 3 in particular, which sets out the case for complex majoritarianism, encompassing proportional representation and the devolution of power to local governments, and Part 4, which explores the populist challenge to democracy.

Following Professor Bellamy’s presentation, Dr Hayley Hooper (University of Oxford) offered her remarks. She commended the monograph for its rigour and for incorporating contemporary democratic practice into constitutional theory. She then asked whether the book was grounded in a particular vision of political constitutionalism, rather than a thin ideology that allows for democratic revolutions. She also wondered whether the current climate of epistemic insecurity and mis-/disinformation poses a distinct challenge to political constitutionalism. Finally, she asked what role the common law has to play in supporting political constitutionalism – for example, whether the common law ought to recognise certain values such as the right to vote and democracy.

Professor Colm O’Cinneide (UCL Laws, GCDC) commended the book for combining clarity with substance and for making an immense intellectual contribution to debates on constitutionalism. He highlighted the comparison between political and legal constitutionalism, suggesting that neither is in great shape at the moment and that the traditional distinctions between them are becoming increasingly blurred. The book, he observed, makes a sustained argument about how ultimately political processes are a means to deliver social change transformation in a way that legal processes cannot. However, he queried whether, given that political constitutions sometimes depend on pre-existing structures, certain legal structures may need to be in place as a prior guarantee. Furthermore, he asked whether political constitutionalism is too demanding for many forms of day-to-day governance, and if so, what compensatory institutions are needed to ensure things like rights protection. Finally, he wondered whether there is inherent instability in the idea of political constitutionalism in the sense that it invites politicisation of everything – even those ethos and structures that are necessary for its operation.

Professor Alan Renwick (UCL Political Science) highlighted the book’s rich engagement with legal and political theory, as well as with historical and contemporary developments. He noted that the book strongly puts forward the case for a political constitution but sought clarification on how the concepts of legal and political constitutionalism are used. He then asked what form a political constitution ought to take if one accepts the book’s core arguments. In particular, he questioned whether the mechanisms proposed in the book – majority rule, proportional representation, and devolution – will be sufficient to check power and protect vulnerable groups. Furthermore, Professor Renwick asked how a democratic ethos can be promoted more broadly, suggesting that a legal constitution may play a role by providing clear rules and norms that can be upheld, in ways that weak-form judicial review and political constitutionalism may struggle to do. He concluded by asking about the role of education, public service media, and deliberative processes in strengthening democracy and ensuring that the system delivers all the ideals.

Dr Udit Bhatia (King’s College London) observed that the book offers a compelling defence of political constitutionalism while engaging with two distinct sets of political circumstances. The first concerns the permanent conditions of any shared political community, including the inevitability of moral disagreement. The second relates to the more contingent circumstances of this particular moment, which includes oligarchic capture and the corrosion of democratic institutions. In this sense, Dr Bhatia noted, the book moves from high normative theory to realism. He questioned the book’s scepticism towards lottocracy, suggesting that randomly selected assemblies could operate as one component within the broader system the book proposes. He also asked whether the logic of devolution might be extended beyond territory to encompass other areas where social and economic power sits. Additionally, Dr Bhatia observed that the sociological conditions for the political constitution seem to be lacking in many contemporary societies and asked, whether, in such circumstances, legal constitutionalism might be the more viable option. At the same time, he acknowledged that such sociological conditions can be cultivated over time through political and social mobilisation, and he invited reflection about what such a process might look like.

Commenting from the floor, Professor Theunis Roux (UNSW Sydney) questioned whether the contrast drawn in the book between republicanism and liberalism is as stark as suggested. Reflecting on the sociological conditions for the political constitution, he also observed that in many post-colonial contexts, states had no choice but to reconstruct their political systems from the ground up through legal constitutionalism. He also pointed to the wave of democratic revival in the 1990s, which spread in the form of legal constitutionalism. In this respect, he noted the view that legal constitutionalism may enable democracy to spread precisely because it is removed from democratic politics. Finally, he questioned the extent to which legal constitutionalism is really removed from politics, pointing to the Treatment Action Campaign case in South Africa which illustrated how constitutional rights within a legal framework can serve as a focal point for social mobilisation.

Responding to the comments, Professor Bellamy addressed several of the themes raised. He acknowledged the concern that political constitutionalism may be too demanding. However, he suggested that a system with proportional representation may help to mitigate this by fostering a greater sense of ownership and involvement among citizens, given the increased likelihood that electoral outcomes will align with voters’ preferences.

On the question of checks and balances, he pointed to the chapter on complex majoritarianism. He noted that systems of simple majoritarianism often end up providing too much power to minority groups, who tend to hold the sway of power between two opposing parties. He further observed that the risk of majority tyranny is frequently emphasised, it is relatively rare in practice compared to forms of minority tyranny. In this light, the chapter tries to suggest how a political system based on complex majoritarianism might be more inclusive and therefore increase the justification for majority rule.

Professor Bellamy also expressed support for extending devolution of power beyond territorial arrangements. He noted that while the book focuses on local governments, it gestures towards forms of economic democracy, suggesting that similar principles might also apply in non-territorial domains.

Turning to sociological underpinnings, Professor Bellamy questioned whether legal constitutionalism can function effectively in their absence. He argued that a society needs to have those sociological underpinnings to accept the constitution in the first place. He pointed to Northern Ireland as an example where both sides had to recognise that the time had come for a settlement before an agreement could be put in place. More generally, he suggested that the legal constitution will only be as strong as the underlying political conditions.

The discussion ended with a question-and-answer session with members of the audience. The event was chaired by Professor Erin Delaney (UCL Laws, GCDC).

Watch a video recording of the event on UCL Laws’ YouTube channel, or view it directly below.