Costituzionalismo nel Sudest Asiatico: Teoria, Ideologia e Dialogo Significativo

On countless occasions, the diffusion of constitutionalism and the phenomenon of worldwide constitutionalization have been presented by politicians and scholars as crowning achievements of liberalism and its tradition. However, this narrative is often a placeholder for ethnocentrism, facile generalizations, and (self-)critical sterility. Suspending in doubt the liberal premise, I will examine the definition of constitutionalism and the ideological nuances of constitutional theory, re-connecting them through a critical re-elaboration of Gallie's thesis of 'essentially contested concepts', with issues of language, interpretation, and dialogic pluralism. In further detail: having presented the debate on the countermajoritarian difficulty as illustrative of dynamics of theoretical contestation and disagreement, I will delve deeper into the mechanisms of 'othering' and 'de-contestation' in the comparative constitutional discourse. By considering law's claim to formal legitimacy and its ties to linguistic and pragmatic aspects of conceptual contestation, I will situate the path towards the recognition of diversity and the realization of a 'meaningful dialogue' in a Wittgensteinian trajectory, and I will lay out the main traits of what I call 'the theory and ideology matrix' of constitutionalism. The conceptual inquiry will thus set the stage to answer the question of whether constitutionalism can live up to the challenges of pluralism in a globalized world in spite of the threats of nihilistic relativism or myopic exceptionalism. I will then apply the gathered theoretical insights to the constitutional discourse in and about Southeast Asia. In particular, having set the contextual boundaries, I will evaluate the role of constitutional 'essentials' in the relationships of liberal and non-liberal constitutionalisms, across the latters' many and, at times, contradictory conceptualizations. To explore the pathways to define a Southeast Asian conception of constitutionalism, I will, on the one hand, review the region's constitutionalization process and the connected efforts to articulate a legal and constitutional culture, especially with reference to the 'Asian values' debate. On the other, I will consider and delineate the best approach to an intercultural dialogue for the recognition of constitutional pluralism in Southeast Asia, dismiss the need for a comprehensive, though pluralist, language, and endorse instead an unlikely path of translation through 'paradoxical constitutionalism'. If my research will be fruitful, it may contribute to the growing literature tackling comparative constitutionalism, law and ideology, and methodological approaches to legal discourses in and on the Global South. Furthermore, I hope to show that the concept of constitutionalism, though, if not by, ultimately escaping a unitary definition, can, on the one hand, be seen as a venue for meaningful dialogue among institutions, scholars, and epistemic communities, within and beyond geographical, cultural, or disciplinary borders, and, on the other hand, foster the kind of critical understanding of the self and the other that should always be a relevant component of theoretical and normative outcomes.