Constitution-writing is flourishing around the world.

CSM reported Despite Iraq's troubled effort to craft a government, the world today is in a golden era of national constitutionmaking. From ex-Soviet nations shedding communist-era laws to candidates for European Union membership buffing credentials, and developing countries striving for internal reconciliation, states everywhere are looking to these thin documents as a powerful symbol of political legitimacy. Since the 1980s, some 100 national constitutions - about half the globe's total - have been created, rewritten, or substantially revised.

Having a constitution is not everything, but it is a very important step.

But there's at least one difference between the constitutions of today and those that are hundreds of years old. In the past, framers often had sharp differences but also shared visions. Think Philadelphia in 1787, when all knew they wanted a democratic, liberal state.

There might be some question about what is meant by "democratic" and "liberal"

By contrast, the framers of today are often just looking for a way of living together without major disagreements.

And is that such a bad thing?

They want to manage differences as much as settle them. "New constitutionalism is ... a conversation, conducted by all concerned, open to new entrants and issues, seeking a workable formula," concludes a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) special report on democratic constitutionmaking.....

Constitutions are still a booming business. There are now at least 185 in the world, according to John Paul Jones, a University of Richmond law professor who maintains a website with the text of national constitutions. And more pop up every year. Qatar finished a rewrite recently, for instance. Kyrgyzstan will probably start one soon. "It's a moving target," says Professor Jones. The heyday of new constitutionmaking followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, he adds. The USSR's East European satellites already had constitutions, of course - fine-sounding ones that guaranteed human rights and so on. They were ineffective in practice because they limited the powers of government, but not those of the Communist Party - the real power in the Soviet era. Most ex-Soviet bloc states wanted a fresh start. Not all constitutional exercises result in formal constitutions, notes Jones, who call constitution-writing "theater that is stimulated by political necessity." In Zimbabwe, for instance, President Robert Mugabe reluctantly established a constitutional commission in 1999 following pressure from civil-society groups and his political opposition. But Mr. Mugabe manipulated the drafting process, and in 2000 it was rejected by the nation's electorate, 54 to 46 percent.

No constitution is better than a bad constitution.

Nor are all constitutions written down. Britain famously has no written formal constitution - but it does have Magna Carta, and the precedents of centuries of democratic practice that by now are as binding as any paper..... The United States did not come to its constitution easily. It took 11 years to get from the Declaration of Independence to the 1787 constitutional convention.

And it was not until December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was approved.