我在我自己写的书Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition里面的第12章《论和平》的第二节宪法安排里论述了宪法的语言学起源。这是人类历史上的第一次。在过去，哲学家和法学家论述宪法的时候，要么论述宪法的社会背景，要么研究宪法的条文，从未有人从语言哲学的角度研究宪法。本人的这项研究开了人类文明史的先河。请感兴趣的读者欣赏。

2. Constitutional Arrangement

Language not only allows for people to make a contract in order to engage in the exchange in the economic domain to the effect that people avoid a war but also allows for people to make a long-term contract instead of a temporary one to coordinate their actions and hence to establish a mode of the constructive mutual interaction in the long run. They can make such a long-term contract as a collective being. They can establish order. A constitution is such a contract. Such a contract is an arrangement made by them to allow for themselves to co-exist peacefully in the same community. The linchpin is that, as they can use language, each can learn about the intention, idea and commitment of all others. They can make a contract. They may keep on coordinating their action and cooperate in accordance with this contract. Thus they can possibly avoid any conflict. They may also avoid a war. They may realize peace. People can discern a correlation between language and peace. This means that the situation in which people use language in their interaction is distinct from the situation in which people do not use language in their interaction. By using language therein, both sides can jointly engage in this mutual interaction. They may make peace. If two sides make peace, they usually have the same intention. They are willing to engage in the mutual interaction. They build a trust relationship. Conversely, if two sides are at war, they normally do not communicate by using language. If two sides interact with each other at war, such an interaction may be unilaterally forced by one side. This interaction may not be accepted by the other side. There is no mutual trust. Such an interaction between one another is not constructive. Both sides do not accept their co-existence. Thus we see that peace is the constructive interaction between one another. A war is usually waged by one side to wipe out the other side while peace means the co-existence of the two sides. The interaction between one another at war is not sustainable while the interaction between one another at peace sustainable. In the state of peace, the interaction between one another must be basically linguistic, whereas in the state of war the interaction between one another is usually physical. If people make a constitution, they merely encourage linguistic interaction. Language is crucial. If we postulate that before people agree to form their community, they are likely to be in the state of war, it is also arguable that a contract, made by them to form their community so as to put an end to the possible state of war, is a peace treaty. A constitution can be such a kind of peace treaty. Language is, ontologically, in relation to contract and hence constitution. Language is also, ontologically, in relation to peace and hence in relation to the building of the society. We can ascertain these complex relations in three aspects.

First, while people communicate using language, they are equal. Language does not discriminate against anyone. So long as language is not abused, all should be treated equal in linguistic communication. Then all are willing to join this society. Though sometimes a person who communicates is strong while another person who communicates is weak, both are indispensable. As a process of linguistic communication needs to go on between the two sides, we cannot argue that one of them is more important than the other. If they sign a contract, they do so on the basis of equality. Equality is the basic element of the formation of this society. Conversely, if people are not equal, they may not be willing to sign a contract. They may not form a society. If they do not form a society, they may be in the state of war. They may not use language because each tries to conquer the other. Each may not treat the other equal. Then we have all the reasons to believe that each side will be the adversary of the other. As they do not join each other to make peace, each side builds up unilaterally its military strength to defend itself. Linguistic communication between the two sides is of no utmost importance. What is of utmost importance is military strength. When they are in conflict, what is decisive may also be military tactic instead of language. As each side tries to get the upper hand, they will never treat each other equal. Each side interacts with the other, merely viewing both the strength of its own and that of the adversary. Only the strength of each side is considered to determine whether or not and how to engage the adversary. That is, each side tries to use its own advantage and the disadvantage of the other side to defeat the other side. Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher, used to say that “It is the rule of war: If our forces are ten to the enemy’s one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two, one to meet the enemy in front, and one to fall upon his rear.”¹³ By contrast, each side expects the other side to cooperate in the state of peace. People may not be organized because they are not always to be organized to build an army to defeat the other side. But they are going to form a society. They are likely to make a constitution.

Second, while people communicate using language, they build their community. They build their society. They often take initiative to inform each other that they hope to make and keep peace. They reveal their plans of building the society. What is important is that their intention of making and keeping peace and their intention of building the society are not misunderstood by each other. Each side depends on the other side in cooperation. Each side may have made an agreement with the other side tacitly. By contrast, if people are at war against each other, they will not give any information to each side in mutual interaction. As two sides confront each other, each side may try to get information about the other side while trying to prevent the other side from getting any information about itself. Each side tries to get prepared to fight and defeat the other side. That is, each side is unwilling to let the adversary know its own disposition while trying its best to learn about the disposition of its adversary. In this case language is not used normally or not used at all though information from the adversary is gathered. Thus spies are sent out. As Sun Tzu stated,

        Knowledge of the spirit world is to be obtained by divination; information in

        natural science may be sought by inductive reasoning; the laws of the universe

        can be verified by mathematical calculation; but the dispositions of the enemy

        are ascertainable through spies and spies alone.¹⁴  

By contrast, each side tells the other side what it thinks in the state of peace. Both sides do not conceal their ideas. While people make and keep peace, each side always lets the other side know that it wants to make and keep peace. While they want to make and keep peace, they recognize that all can co-exist. Peace means the co-existence of all. All are cooperators. All act in unison. If they make an agreement, this agreement can be regarded as a constitution. The constitution is a language solution.

Third, while people communicate using language, language compels all to be honest. Honesty is required in the formation of the society. Honesty is part of morality. This means that people form their community in linguistic communication and they also form their community with morality. So long as language is not abused, linguistic communication supports the spread of morality in the community and morality supports the formation of the society. In terms of the relationship between morality and constitution, my view is that while people make a constitution, this constitution should be moral. The reason is that the constitution is usually agreed to by all. As all agree to this constitution, this constitution should not be immoral. In other words, if this constitution is immoral, all will not reach an agreement. If a document is immoral, it will always be controversial.  In the meantime I argue that if people choose not to use language to make a peace treaty, they will be likely to be in conflict. Sometimes they will go to war. While people go to war, they are not able to adhere to morality. They will not be honest. They will cheat each other. Each side uses every method, including immoral method, to defeat the other side. For example, one side may especially conduct a night combat to beat the other side that is not prepared for that combat in the night. This side will never notify the other side in advance. Even the method of deception is adopted as a military tactic. Thus sometimes one side is misled by the other in the battle. An evil plot is sometimes adopted to defeat the adversary. If language is used, it is abused. Therefore, Sun Tzu opined that “All warfare is based on deception.”¹⁵ He even further wrote that “when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”¹⁶ There is no honesty between the two adversaries. Each side does not trust the other. Both adversaries are in the state of nature. By contrast, people who make a constitution often clarify their intention. They are open and aboveboard. They build their society.

That is, linguistic interaction differs from physical interaction. In linguistic interaction, people are likely to obey a rule. A war is natural while peace is man-made. A war means the state of nature while peace does not mean the state of nature. As Kant said, “The state of peace among men living in close proximity is not the natural state (status naturalis); instead, the natural state is a one of war, which does not just consist in open hostilities, but also in the constant and enduring threat of them.”¹⁷ The reason is that while people use violence in their interaction, all deny the rationality of the co-existence of all. Violence often rages regardless of possible linguistic interaction. In this case, each side may think that the best defense is offense. Each does not notify the other side by using language that the other side should get prepared in defense.  If a truce or peace is made, however, each side is obligated not to assail the other. Then they may formulate an agreement and agree to be obligated to recognizes the right to survive had by each.  Then the relation among them under these circumstances will be distinct from that relation in the state of war. That is, the relation between the two sides at war may be imposed on a certain side. In some sense this relation may also be imposed on both sides. The related interaction may be the one in which a certain side or the two sides are unwilling to engage. For example, when a war breaks out, this war may be unilaterally launched by one side only, and the other side has no alternative but to wage the war. When people are at peace, however, they make and keep peace on voluntary basis. No side forces the other side to make and keep peace. Making and keeping peace meets their own interest. Both sides want to make and keep peace. Both sides have common interest. Peace is their common will. Peace is their common undertaking. Then each side may send out a piece of information and advance an idea to the effect that they coordinate their action because they can coordinate the brains of all people under the guidance of an idea. Then, the suggestion of making peace from one side gets a positive response from the other side. Each side may encourage the other side to keep peace. Each side may trust the other side. Each side has confidence in the other side. Thus they may standardize the interaction between the two sides. They may define the rights had by each side and the obligations undertaken by each side. They make a long-term contract. Because of this, they further make a rule for the organization of the state on the basis of this long-term contract. Thus people prevent any conflict, including a war. They begin to organize the state on the basis of a constitution. Then this constitution defines the procedure of making any law, the form of the government and the powers and obligations of the power holders as well as the rights and obligations of the citizens. As a document made by using language, the constitution displays that it is always characterized by the fact that all have reached a consensus on the organization of the state under the guidance of an idea. The constitution is a document that allows for people to form a peaceful society. As people build the state over this society, the constitution is also a document for people to build their state. They realize the overall peace of the society and the state. I mean that  though people may engage in social exchange, leading to the cooperation between one another that puts an end to the personal war, people may not always avoid war. The social exchange, such as the exchange of goods and services, may mean the making of a parochial contract. People, engaging in social exchange, make a deal in a certain aspect, but not in all aspects. Thus in all other aspects, people may have different expectations and intentions whenever they cope with various specific matters and interact with each other. They may have different desires. They may show different inclinations. They may insist on different principles. They may devote themselves to different causes.  They may be in conflict. They may even be at war. They may be even in the state of war of every man against every man. Yet when they make a constitution by using language, they coordinate their action. They may reach a consensus across the state. They are tempted to act under the guidance of this consensus. They may standardize their mutual interaction. They may even conceptualize their rights and obligations in order to standardize their mutual interaction. They avoid a conflict or a war. Thus, Hobbes believed that peace is made when the contract, according to which one transfers to the other his right conferred by the law of nature, is implemented. He wrote that:

        From that law of Nature, by which we are obliged to transferre to another, such

        Rights, as being retained, hinder the peace of Mankind, there followeth a Third;

        which is this, That men perform their Covenants made: without which,

        Covenants are in vain, and but Empty words; and the Right of all men to all

        things remaining, we are still in the condition of Warre.¹⁸

That is, people may lower or minimize the probability of the outbreak of a conflict between one another if a right can be transferred by each side to the other. People may also lower the probability of the outbreak of a war. Though the theory about the law of nature, expounded by Hobbes, is hypothetical, this theory tells us how people make peace. People share an idea in linguistic communication and an idea conceptualizes rights. After people conceptualize rights, they formulate a contract that evolves to be a constitution. Thus a constitution, defining rights, becomes an important tool to create and maintain peace. This further indicates that the two sides in conflict do not necessarily need to use language. Intending to coordinate their action or to make peace, they have to use language. If they sign a peace treaty, that treaty is the constitution.  This bears testimony to the fact that peace does not simply mean the situation in which no war breaks out. In the situation in which no war breaks out, people must engage in linguistic interaction and make a constitution to ensure their peaceful co-existence. People are animals though they are different from other animals in many respects. They move. They have their own consciousness. They are in the potential state of being in conflict with each other. Without the use of language and a constitution, people may not be able to coordinate their interaction. A conflict or a war may break out. Thus using language to make a constitution to coordinate the action of all to ensure their peaceful co-existence is a way to prevent any conflict or war from breaking out. This is the reason why people draft a constitution. The constitution is a peace treaty. 

The reason for me to hold that the constitution is a peace treaty is that constitution only allows for people to engage in linguistic interaction. Linguistic interaction means peace. Linguistic interaction is normally standardized. Standardized linguistic interaction avoids a physical conflict or a war. Then people have certain chances to eliminate misunderstanding and find a solution to solve their dispute when they are involved in a dispute. Then people naturally turn to cooperating with each other. A constitution should be such a document especially formulated to allow for all to co-exist under the guidance of an agreement made by all. People make and have peace. This is the constitutional order. This is a constitutional arrangement. Language underlies a process of formulating a contract and finally the organization of the state.

First, people, making a constitution, give a joint presentation. A constitution is a document in which the formulators of the constitution especially define the rights and obligations of all the citizens, and people usually have no misunderstanding of the related provisions. As the rights and obligations of the citizens are defined by the constitution, a document agreed to by all, all understand such rights and obligations in the same way. The presentation of the constitution means that all confirm that they understand the provisions of the constitution without any error. Since the constitution is a document for all to cooperate to build their state, all know the expectations of others. This is because all accept the constitution. The reason is that people present all the provisions and no one opposes them. This proves that all agree to these provisions and all understand them in the same way. People will no longer argue about the real meanings of those provisions. People will obey the constitution without any controversy.  As all the provisions are noted down, people will not forget them along with the passage of time. All know that they have accepted the constitution. Normally, the constitution is made by the delegates sitting in the legislature. In some states, these delegates might be only elected by a small portion of the citizens in history because at that time not all citizens were able to meet the requirement of the ownership of property or some other requirements. Yet if such a constitution was accepted by all the citizens in later times, we can still believe that the constitution was made on behalf of all the citizens. Thus there is no misunderstanding of the intention of all for cooperation.

Second, if a war is waged by a group of people against another group of people, these two groups of people may not perform linguistic communication with each other. If a man conquers a group of people, he may not perform linguistic communication with that group of people. However, if a power holder intends to build a state, he is required to have ruling legitimacy. He seeks support from the masses. Particularly, he seeks support from his people when he wages a civil war or a war against another state. He has to perform linguistic communication with the masses. He seeks support from the masses and the masses request him to provide public services. He makes a promise to the masses and the masses may also make a promise to him. As a result, he, in some sense, gives rights to the masses and the masses undertake some obligations to him. The constitution is in line with this logic. The constitution may mean that the two sides have made an agreement. This means that after people make the constitution, there will be the certainty of cooperation of all with all in the future because the constitution is a contract all are supposed to obey. In ancient times the constitution, made by people, was sometimes just a custom. As the custom was taken for granted, it was usually complied with by all as if it were a contract obeyed by all. As a result, all were aware that all intended to cooperate with each other. Thus, it would not be easy for a war to break out. Therefore in ancientGreeceor Rome some constitutions of the states were unwritten. Those constitutions might be composed of several different forms including a custom. As all or the majority of the citizens agreed to and carried out the custom, the custom might function to prevent some potential conflicts from arising. In other words, as all obeyed that custom, they would interact with each other as required. People were prevented from being easily involved in any conflict. Likewise, if people formulate a constitution in writing in modern times, all confirm that they have made a promise in writing. As all make a promise, they cooperate with one another. All know that all will cooperate with one another. People prevent a war from breaking out as a result.

Third, a constitution is a general rule. This is because people always discuss the draft of the constitution. When they discuss the draft of the constitution, it is easy for them to reach an agreement in principle. As the constitution is a rule made for millions of people, people can only make the general rule.  A constitution lays a foundation for the making of peace because people can formulate a general rule just like a law by using language. In formulating a constitution, people only lay down general provisions which constitute a principle covering all aspects of organizing the state. As there are plenty of citizens, their specific interests vary greatly. They belong to different social classes. They may belong to various ethnic groups. They reside in different regions. They receive a varying education. They may believe in different religions. It is totally impossible for them to get together to make a very detailed constitution satisfying all their specific demands. Thus, people formulate a constitution that defines the organization of the state in principle only. It is feasible to reach an agreement this way. It is easy for millions of people to reach an agreement on a general principle because a general principle is usually made according to an abstract notion or is a generally-delineated proposal. People can organize the state on the basis of this constitution though they may disagree to various policies that are regarded as failing to satisfy certain specific interests of the citizens. The result is that even though citizens may disagree to specific policies made and carried out by the government from time to time, the constitutional system remains intact. Sometimes a portion of people oppose a policy carried out by the government. They express their attitude of opposition to the government. They may even request the resignation of the head of the government so as to hold the leader of the government accountable for a policy they oppose. But people seldom think of changing the constitutional system. They sometimes oppose the government, but they do not challenge the constitutional system. Thus people maintain peace. This is because, by using language, people can communicate with one another throughout the state. If they are in conflict with each other because the constitution fails to provide a specific framework for them to solve this dispute, such a conflict usually only concerns a dispute between the authorities and the citizens and people usually do not hold the constitution accountable. This means that all have reached a general agreement throughout the state. People organize the state as an ensemble. In contrast, any conflict is usually parochial.

Fourth, as noted earlier, people, at war, do not necessarily need to use language while people, at peace, are required to use language. Similarly, people, waging a war, seek to realize a scheme of the distribution of interest in favor of themselves only. They do not necessarily use language. For example, in medieval times a feudal lord waged a war to plunder land, leading to the re-distribution of land in a local area. He might not be required to use language to engage in a mutual consultation with others. In contrast, people, intending to distribute interest peacefully, have to use language. If people want to maintain peace, they have to distribute interest fairly. Though people may not be absolutely able to maintain peace if they distribute interest fairly because some people may intend to distribute interest unfairly through a war, no unfair distribution of the interest can prevent a war from breaking out. If that war does not break out at the moment, it will break out in future. But if people distribute interest fairly, this may make peace. When people formulate a constitution, they set up a committee of constitution. This committee may be established as required by the legislature. The legislature is formed by the delegates elected by the electorate. This means that the constitution is made as consented by the people. It is made by the people. The blueprint of organizing the state is no longer the blueprint made in the brain of the power holder but the blueprint jointly made by the people. As it is made by the people, it must be made under the scrutiny of the public. Various detailed and long procedures are set up in advance to ensure that the constitution is properly and cautiously made, amended and approved. Making, amending and approving the constitution by using language under the scrutiny of the public highlights the extension of linguistic communication because people have to communicate across the state. In other words, the process of linguistic communication has to be extended to allow for citizens to discuss, and on the occasion of holding a referendum, to approve, the making or the amendment of the constitution. The constitution is thus made to establish a long process of linguistic communication through which the makers of the constitution communicate with all within the state. It is a general contract made by all. To make or to amend or to approve the constitution is to initiate a long process of linguistic communication that reaches all. The common interest of all takes shape. People also formulate various procedures for themselves to go through this long process of linguistic communication. Thus, all are supposed to obey the procedures of making, amending and approving the constitution when people make, or amend, or approve, the constitution. Thus Kelsen wrote that:

        The original constitution of a State is the work of the founders of the State. If

        the State is created in a democratic way, the first constitution originates in a

        constituent assembly, what the French call une constituante. Sometimes any

        change in the constitution is outside the competence of the regular legislative

        organ instituted by the constitution, and reserved for such a constituante, a

        special organ competent only for constitution amendments. In this case it is

        customary to distinguish between a constituent power and a legislative power,

        each being exercised according to different procedures. The device most

        frequently resorted to in order to render constitutional amendments more

        difficult is to require a qualified majority (two-thirds or three-fourths) and a

        higher quorum (the number of the members of the legislative body

        competent to transact business) than usual. Sometimes, the change has to be

        decided upon several times before it acquires the force of law.¹⁹

Fifth, when people are at war, they destroy their community. When people are at peace, they build their community. People, building their community, are guided by an idea disseminated by using language. In contrast, people, at war, may not necessarily be guided by any idea. They may not use language. If people are guided by an idea when they are at war, it cannot be always guaranteed that that idea is just. If all seek peace and all are guided by an idea, that idea should be just and all interact in linguistic communication. Thus, people, at war, may simply seek material interest such as land. The strongest man is usually the victor. Violence is a decisive factor. When people are at peace, they engage in the linguistic interaction. They cooperate with each other. They build their community. As they build their community, they may share an idea. This idea should be just. As all embrace the same just idea, they may always see eye to eye on the management of public affairs. They do not have disagreements on major public affairs. It may not be easy for them to be in conflict with each other. They keep peace. So we see that people, formulating a constitution, may always propagate some valuable ideas such as the idea of humanism, the idea of freedom, and the idea of human rights among others. These ideas may be originally offered by some past philosophers and handed down to the following generations. The reason that these ideas are handed down is usually that they are correct and valuable. These ideas may be the results of an effort made by many generations of people. To hand down these ideas, people use language. The making of a constitution bears testimony to this fact. This fact is that, formulating a constitution, people advance an idea accepted by all at the same time. People may proclaim that they insist on a major idea in the preamble of the constitution. This idea is usually the general guidance of organizing the state. As this idea can be interpreted, the same idea is propagated to all citizens. All the citizens may embrace the same idea. All of them may view the constitution from the same perspective. If all the citizens hold the same idea, their chances of being in conflict with each other will become slim. This is because all, embracing the same idea, usually accept the same method in organizing the state. They will see eye to eye on many matters concerning the organization of the state. Thus a constitution written under the guidance of an idea can function to create peace within the state.

In short, when people formulate a constitution, they eliminate misunderstanding and establish a mutual trust relationship; they ascertain long-term cooperation between one another; they agree to a general principle in the organization of the state; they create a framework for the fair distribution of interest through mutual consultation; and they embrace the same idea. Their common interest takes shape. Then people consider the state legitimate. They differentiate the state from the government. Thus, people tend not to oppose the state but the government whenever they disagree with the government on a policy or a law. This is distinct from the case of a despotic state. In a despotic state, people make no constitution. If people make a constitution, this constitution may not be really carried out. In this case people regard the government as the state. If people confront the government, they confront the state. They tend to revolt. If a constitution exists, people usually gain the freedom of speech. If they confront the government, they may wage a demonstration. They tend not to revolt because they respect the constitutional system as mentioned earlier. However, in a despotic state, people sometimes act in unison not because they can lawfully take collective action but because of the functioning of some other media. If the state is governed by a despotic ruler, some media may function to make the masses act in unison to revolt against the government. At least there are three media in this context. The first medium may be a serious situation that occurs suddenly such as a famine or a plague or an international war. Under the despotic rule, ordinary people have many complaints. They are, however, unable to coordinate with each other so as to act in unison because they are unable to keep in touch with thousands of people on a large scale. They may not be able to communicate with many other people across the state so as to mobilize many people in the similar situation. If a special situation occurs across the state, this situation may function to trigger a civil war, or an uprising, or a revolution because millions of people may suddenly find that they are in the same situation and have the same idea. In ancientChina, some massive peasant uprisings broke out state-wide because of a widespread famine. In other words, without such a famine breaking out in a large area ordinary people, in the far-flung corners of the state, would neither unite nor act in unison to revolt. The second medium is thought. It is not easy for so many people to unite firmly and keep on pursuing a goal in the long run because the more people there are, the more different expectations and interests people have. Yet a thought usually meets the expectation of plenty of people. A thought may motivate the masses to act. A thought may be jointly accepted by millions of people. If many people embrace the same thought, they may hold the same idea and show the same inclination. They may pursue the same goal. Thus, they may unite. Because of this, we can also believe that a thought can function as a medium under certain circumstances. Thus, as under the condition of the despotic rule a thought against the despotic rule may be spread, a revolution may break out. The third medium may be an organization. A social or political organization may mobilize the masses. As a social or political organization is formed by those who are most active in social and political activities, the members of those organizations actually function as media in support of linguistic communication that reaches all who support or are sympathetic with that organization. This organization may gather dispersed ordinary people. Ordinary people may thus stand up against the despotic government because without a constitution the related organization may not recognize the legitimacy of the state. After the constitution is made, however, people tend not to oppose or challenge the constitutional system or the entire system of the state. Usually, the political system is characteristic of the separation of powers. All political organizations recognize the existing legal system. No political organization upsets the political system of the state. Thus some media that may stimulate people to unite to enter into a civil war are prevented from functioning. Because of this, the conflict if any is parochial. For example, in history when no constitution was made or the constitutional system was unstable, a revolt, or a revolution, sometimes broke out. Since people made the constitution or a stable constitutional system, they have been waging no war against the state but occasionally waging a demonstration on the street to make a protest against a policy or an act of the government only. In early modern times in Europe there were radical political movements intending to overthrow the government. In later times such political movements largely disappeared. People now usually accept the existing constitutional system. Thus, if they are dissatisfied with any policy or any act of the government, they raise a protest or attempt to change the government peacefully in stead of requesting a change in government form or the building of a new state. In this case a civil war is unlikely to break out. People make and keep peace.

This indicates that the acts of power holders and citizens are strictly defined by a document made by using language. So long as people obey the provisions of the constitution, it is unlikely to encounter a conflict. If there is any dispute that may lead to the outbreak of any conflict, such a dispute will be resolved according to the law made under the constitution or the constitution itself. A civil war is unlikely to break out. As language can be used by people many times and in various ways, the power of language cannot be exhausted by any provision. People, making many provisions in the constitution and the attached files, find the best method to ensure harmony and cooperation of all no matter whether they govern the state or are subject to the governance of the state. This means that the power holders are aware of how to use power in the governance of the state and ordinary people are aware of how to submit to the governance of the state in which the power holders engage. All can anticipate how power is exercised. All agree to the method of using power. The will of the constitution is the will of the people. It is difficult to gain power by violence or in the way not defined by the constitution. All agree to comply with the constitution when they settle any dispute. People organize the state at peace.