1. What are “constitutions” and their task from the point of view of the independent self-determination of the majority of humankind, who was colonized for hundreds of years through European model of constitutions?

What did “constitution” mean for Gandhi’s initiatives of decolonization, when he said that the ancestors of Indian people “held the sovereigns of the earth to be inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs. A nation with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than to learn from others” ? (Gandhi, “Hindi Swaraj”, Ahmedabad 2001, p.54)

“Constitution” means here such foundation of the order of justice in the land that “courts, lawyers and doctors… were all within bounds” of people’s ethical self-determination, where “kings and their swords were inferior to the swords of ethics” (and “happiness was largely a mental condition”) (“Hindi Swaraj”,p.54).

“Swaraj” as a constitution of the “real civilization” of ancient India required justice by a moral “mastery over our minds and passions” so that universal ethical law of justice constitutes higher law (for conscious responsible action) than orders of worldly power, whose “man-made laws are not necessarily binding”. “Even the Government does not expect any such thing from us. They do not say: “You must do such and such a thing”, but they say : “If you do not do it, we will punish you”. (Hindi Swaraj p. 69-70).

“It is Swaraj, when we learn to rule ourselves” (Hindi Swaraj, p. 56) as rural people of India have done for millenniums. “The common people lived independently and followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true Home Rule” living in autonomous self-subsistence with their self-made ancient ploughs, cottages and rules of the “proper use of our hands and feet” “not polluted by the railways”. “Justice was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid courts… And where this cursed modern civilization has not reached, India remains as it was before” (Hindi Swaraj, p.53-54). For those who want the power it is “a fitting thing for their constitution” to get “you and me to obey their laws”, “but a passive resister will say he will not obey law that is against his conscience” as he must follow universal ethical law of justice as the foundation of governance. (Hindi Swaraj, p.71). Thus “the real meaning of the statement that we are a law-abiding nation is that we are passive resisters. When we do not like certain laws, we do not brake the heads of law-givers but we suffer and do not submit to the laws” (when suffering “the penalties for their breach”). That it is not right “to obey laws that are unjust… is the key to self-rule or home-rule”. (Hindi Swaraj p. 69-70)

2. Also the culture of modernisation had universal intention (of equality etc.) and its unforeseen material affluence and power are promised and meant to satisfy desires for us all without moral risk.

Thus the major claims of justice, democracy and universal human rights have meant that all people must be born as equals in that how their life and rights are decided or affected by societies and their structures. World´s resources belong to people so that it is their human right to determine freely by their democratic decisions their own means of subsistence as the use of the resources of their land to realize the human rights (rights to food, health, education) equally for all. Also all international co-operation is obliged to promote and not weaken these peoples´ rights to self-determination and development as their human rights to use the resources of their land for their own means of subsistence.

Today, however, peoples are forced widely to renounce their own means of subsistence due to the international relations, structures and rules. The five centuries of modern expansion, marked by excessive amounts of unequally distributed poverty and wealth, oppression and emancipation, suffering and self-realization, cultural decline and flowering.

Modern constitutions are products of European colonial intentions of unequal division of everything. The independence of the countries in the South is realized mostly by the take-over of these colonial structures of state and constitution, which are structured through centuries to serve European intentions.

So Gandhi’s reply to those Indians, who wanted to throw away the English, but to keep their constitution was that they “want English rule without the Englishman”. (Hindi Swaraj, p. 26). Also the now prevailing structures of “democracy”, which have developed under the heritage of colonialism, are serving European intentions, governance and nation-structures of the European culture.

3. Thus, under the modern global rule of “democratic” constitutions, the decisions which the majority of humankind can decide, are not allowed to affect much to the life of the Europeans, but the decisions of the Europeans are empowered to affect directly the life and possibilities of the majority of humankind.

And still in modernity of “democratic” constitutions that, to where (which place or country in the world) one happens to be born determines how much resources are available for the realization of her or his universal human rights.

We must ask : Why has the spread of "democracy" in the world been accompanied by the spread of universal inequality in the world ? Why even the most essential structures of the powers and positions in deciding and affecting globally peoples´ rights (and their realization) are not even explicated for being decided as the most essential thing for human rights.

What would it thus mean for us today to be guided in our politics by those very ideals of democracy, equity and freedom and dignity of all, which the dominating powers still, with unfathomable hypocrisy, claim for themselves? In the name of democracy, new world-orders are dictated by force. (Earlier president of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari for example said in 2003 that the most powerful "democracies", the G-8, should agree how to force the less democratic countries of the rest of the world to follow and fulfil what these 8 rich and powerful "democracies" dictate for the rest of the world).

Will "democracy" become a legitimation of a new global imperial dictatorship or will it be universal (com-) promise of how (not) to determine self-determining equality ? We are probably in the situation where "those in whose name we speak we do not know, nor do they know us”. (Hindi Swaraj, p. 54)

Can we require that the majority should not use the word "democracy" in such a way that respect and growth of such "democracy" makes inequality to grow ? What "majority" wants to say here is "want of majority" as something unknown. (Majority in the world - maybe also UNDP - may use the word "democracy" so that they would say that it has widely increased and spread in the world during the period, which has made universal inequality to increase).

Under the measures of majority by the prevailing rules “it is a superstition and ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority bind a minority. Many examples can be given in which the acts of majorities will be found to have been wrong and those of minorities to have been right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation of minorities in opposition to majorities”. (Hindi Swaraj, p.70)

"Democracy" requires such equality of power, which ensures that the spread of democracy can not increase universal inequality.

We must ask, can there exist ´power´, which is a culturally neutral element , which can be shared universally and equally to (and by) all cultures ? (So that inequality may not be not increased for example in the name of such separate national majority-decisions of different nations, where the minority of nations could rule the majority).

Can all cultures be universally and equally represented by power, governance or by their decision making ?

Due to various these kind of problems, the call for global democratisation can also be dangerous unless it is understood in a larger cultural context. Not only any meaning of constitution, but also of democracy is culturally conditioned so that what is democratic, depends on the nature of the cultural entity, whose amount of democracy is in question.

What should be however binding in the democratic rule of majority, is that those in power “want to command, but those who have to obey commands do not want guns; and these are in a majority throughout the world” (Hindi Swaraj, p. 72) . And the “rulers... will have to remain as servants of the people" and "abandon the idea of deriving any commercial benefit from us.” (Hindi Swaraj, p 86).

4. Under the horizons, which are presented above, we go on now to examine in the following chapters more concretely the following subjects :

- How the problems which are inherent in the European structures of constitutions are further crystallized in the new draft EU constitution.

- How the Constitutive Act of the African Union is more democratic than the EU Constitution