Can ‘the people’ speak in one voice? The problem of collective speech in the debate on constituent power and constitutionalism

Recent writings on constituent power insist that ‘the people’ cannot speak in one voice without widespread violence and deceit. Yet reform-minded constitutionalists are reluctant to abandon a concept that can legitimate deep change, so look for ways to keep it within safe limits. This article argues that both sides of this debate make assumptions about collective voice that deepen the disagreement. More specifically, critics of constituent power have mistakenly transposed an idealized concept of individual speech onto the collective setting, while constitutionalists are implicated in the kind of voice that filters through. Collective speech is possible, but like all speech it involves reception as well as vocalization, hearing as well as utterance. Because speech is always shared, adopting a reception-side approach to constituent power has a tempering effect on the absolutism of populist claims. Preserving the emergent legitimacy of collective speech, however, demands participants caretake their role in dialogue meticulously. That means avoiding interpretational overreach and demonstrating a readiness to work with complexity rather than reduce it. What constituent power demands, then, is not a miraculously coherent speaker, but exceptionally conscientious listeners.