ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the constitution-making as a failed process. Parliament voted to reappoint the elected members of the Constitutional Assembly, since in spite of the conclusion that the elections had not been ideally carried out, no suspicion of fraud ever arose. The most active proponents, however, vastly overstated the case, since public opinion seemed to favor basing a new constitution on the draft rather than simply accepting the draft. The Councils lack of methodology explains, at least partly, how severely constitutional scholars and political scientists later attacked the draft. If Council members were to focus on the existing constitution and the proposals made by legal experts, the danger was that their mission, to both genuinely represent the public and change the political culture in Iceland, would be unsuccessful. The belief in solidarity may have blinded CC members not only to actual political disagreements but also to the inevitable moral disagreement in a pluralistic society.
