On the question of the meaning of the constitution for the country, there are different views. During the struggle against royal absolutism in the past, and in some countries of the East and now the ideologues of the struggle for democracy, based on the voluntarist concepts, give the constitution crucial in establishing the social and political system of the country.
From their point of view, it all depends on the ideas that guide the framers of the Constitution: the social system would be fair to take a "good" constitution. Of course, on paper you can write any text of the constitution. But if the text does not match the socio-political conditions, it will remain a dead letter.
Under the communist regime in Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, in the fullness of the Constitution establishes the authority of parliament and local councils, listed extensive rights of citizens and called such important safeguards that were in the basic laws of Western democracies. However, the reality did not match with those provisions.
In order for the constitution acted, it must take into account the actual conditions of the country, the level of legal culture and many other factors of social life. But that does not mean that the constitution - a simple snapshot of the current situation.
The progressive democratic constitution (Japan 1946, Italy in 1947, Brazil in 1988, etc.) contributes to a genuine expression of the will of the people and accounting, strengthen the democratic system, the implementation of urgent social and economic reforms.
Constitution enshrines the authoritarian orders (Romania 1965 as amended in 1974, Zaire, as amended in 1980, Ethiopia in 1987, South Africa in 1983, and others), ultimately hindered the country's development, social progress and were fraught with social explosion, which happened in Romania, Ethiopia and other countries.
In South Africa, the apartheid regime was abolished, the constitution of 1983 replaced the 1994 Interim Constitution, then the Constitution