It’s no surprise, then, that scholars like Montgomery Watt and Reynold A. Nicholson have described the Medina Charter as a constitution—remarkably close, in spirit, to what we now understand as a modern one.
The Essence of Constitutionalism
At its heart, constitutionalism grows out of a social contract—a collective agreement that gives birth to a sovereign state. This agreement defines the shape of the state and grants legitimacy to its governing authority. Without it, power floats unanchored, lacking both form and justification.
Modern constitutionalism, however, goes further. It isn’t satisfied with structure alone; it demands substance. A constitution today is expected to protect human rights, not merely organize institutions. This shift emerged as a response to the dangers of rigid legal formalism—systems that prioritize procedure over justice.
History provides a stark warning. The atrocities committed by Nazi Germany during World War II were carried out under the cover of legally sanctioned policies. The law, in that case, became a tool of oppression rather than a shield against it. That’s precisely why strict legal formalism has fallen out of favor—it failed to serve justice.
Another key pillar of constitutionalism is the limitation of power. The reasoning is simple, almost intuitive: power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Left unchecked, authority can easily tilt toward excess. A constitution, therefore, acts as a boundary—defining how far power can go and where it must stop. And crucially, only the constitution itself can impose those limits.
A state that fails to uphold these two principles—protecting human rights and restricting power—can hardly be called constitutional in any meaningful sense.