Ferdinand Lassalle’s 1862 pamphlet, "What is a Constitution?", remains a foundational text for understanding the actual forces that shape governing documents, moving beyond purely legalistic interpretations. Lassalle confronts the prevailing bourgeois liberal view, which saw constitutions as solemn declarations of rights and principles, arguing instead that a constitution is fundamentally an expression of the real power relations within a society. He posits that the true constitution is written not on parchment but in the actual distribution of power, and that written documents only become operative when they reflect this underlying reality. This essay will analyze Lassalle’s central argument, exploring his distinction between the "written" and "actual" constitution, his identification of the key power factors, and the implications of his thesis for understanding constitutional stability and change.
Lassalle's most striking contribution is his sharp dichotomy between the written constitution and the "actual" or "real" constitution. For him, the written document, the "paper constitution," is merely a statement of intent or aspiration. The "actual constitution," however, is the sum of the forces that are actually in operation, the real power structures that determine how a society is governed. He illustrates this with the example of Prussia in his time. The Prussian constitution of 1850, a liberal document, declared extensive parliamentary rights. Yet, Lassalle argued, this paper constitution was ineffectual because the real power lay with the monarchy, the army, and the landed aristocracy. These were the "power-factors" that dictated policy, not the elected representatives debating in the Prussian Landtag. The written words of the constitution could not, by themselves, compel these dominant forces to cede their authority. They only held sway if the power-factors themselves either supported them or were at least neutral.
To further illuminate his point, Lassalle identifies the essential power-factors that constitute the real foundation of any state. He enumerates these as: the monarchical power (the Crown), the power of the nobility, the power of the educated class, the power of the bourgeoisie, and the power of the working classes. The relative strength and influence of these groups, Lassalle contended, determined the actual functioning of the state and, consequently, its real constitution. If, for instance, the King could raise taxes without the consent of Parliament, or if the army could dissolve the elected assembly, then the written articles guaranteeing parliamentary control over finance or the inviolability of elected officials were effectively null and void. The constitution, in Lassalle’s view, was thus a reflection of the balance of these power-factors. A stable constitution, therefore, was one that accurately mirrored the existing power distribution, while an unstable one was a mismatch between the written word and the lived reality of power.
The implications of Lassalle’s analysis are profound. It suggests that constitutional reform or revolution is not merely a matter of drafting new legal texts or amending existing ones. True constitutional change requires a shift in the underlying power dynamics. If the working classes, for example, were to gain sufficient power, they could compel the existing power-factors to recognize their influence, thereby altering the actual constitution. Conversely, attempts to impose a constitution that clashes with the dominant power-structures are doomed to fail or remain mere paper exercises. This perspective offers a more pragmatic, albeit perhaps cynical, view of constitutionalism, emphasizing the role of political struggle and power dynamics over abstract legal reasoning. It helps explain why constitutions, even those with seemingly robust protections, can be subverted or ignored when the powerful are unwilling to abide by them.
In conclusion, Ferdinand Lassalle’s "What is a Constitution?" offers a compelling critique of idealistic constitutionalism by grounding it in the tangible realities of power. His distinction between the written and actual constitution, and his identification of the key power-factors, provide a framework for understanding why some constitutions endure and others falter. By emphasizing that a constitution is ultimately an expression of existing power relations, Lassalle challenges us to look beyond the legal text and examine the actual forces that shape governance, a perspective that remains highly relevant for analyzing political systems today.