Truth be told, the country suffers from an acute case of ‘constitutionalism’. After all, why should a nation that penned no fewer than three Constitutions during the eight years of its War of Independence break the habit now that it’s not at war or under threat from anyone?

All of this, of course, begins with the absence of a fixed fulcrum. Because all these ideas and proposals are formulated and circulated without us having agreed on the most fundamental thing of all: what kind of democracy do we want?

So, we’ve heard a lot about the incompatibility of the roles of MP and minister, about reducing the number of seats in Parliament, changing the way MPs are elected in constituencies, or amending the procedure for appointing the country’s judicial leadership—but all without ever once explaining why we’re having these conversations in the first place.

We’re each left to come up with what we will, in the light of the circumstances and our own convenience.

There’s also been talk of removing politicians’ criminal immunity (parliamentary immunity and Article 86 on ministerial responsibility) in the name of a constitutional populism of the most repugnant kind.

Which is the surest way to ensure that half the population is prosecuting the other half while no one actually governs— ultimately leaving our judges and prosecutors to take center stage – even those who retired long ago.

Because there is one crucial element missing from all of this: what it is we want exactly!

We live in a parliamentary democracy, with all that this entails. I haven’t heard anyone cast doubts on that, or express a desire for something different in its place.

Yet here we are, embroiled in a mindless dispute over what’s been dubbed the ‘executive state’, when it’s obvious that its ‘executive’ nature refers solely to the government’s modus operandi.

I suppose Churchill must have been fed up with this sort of thing when he observed that ‘for every three Greeks, there are two prime ministers and one leader of the opposition’.

In a political climate where even the Judiciary is being smeared amidst a sordid partisan dispute, what sort of constitution can we expect to draft?

A constitution that will define and govern the workings of our democracy? Or a constitution that mirrors the animosities, prejudices and hatreds of a political class in which one side brands the other a ‘criminal gang’?

I think the answer is obvious. All this stems from a lack of a common understanding of what sort of democracy we’re advocating. From its subservience to party-political horse-trading.

Still, if we fail to achieve this shared understanding, it’s democracy that will pay the price.