ABSTRACT
Weak constitutionalism and democratic legitimacy not only demand a constitution that makes available a set of mechanisms that facilitate the exercise of constituent power. The most an established mechanism of constitutional change can achieve, it was suggested by Carl Schmitt, is the execution of the constituent power: the transformation of the will of the constituent subject into law. But in order for an exercise of constituent power to take place, something, some sort of political act(s), must occur that results in the initiation of constituent activity. Such activity would normally take the form of informal political practices like civil disobedience, street assemblies and mass protests. By engaging in those kinds of activities, groups who aim at the transformation of the constitutional regime attempt to create the climate necessary (e.g., convince other citizens that an important constitutional transformation is desirable) for an exercise of constituent power to take place and a new constitutional regime to be produced. Put differently, these groups would attempt to activate constituent power in the hope that the decision (now supported by a great majority of the population) in favour of a new constitutional regime is executed. As a way of concluding my analysis, this chapter will examine the distinction between the activation and the execution of constituent power, and briefl y explore its meaning in the context of the recent upheavals in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.
