 around both the magnitude and the pace of the process, no understanding how and why decisions about the process and the substance of the process of change were made. What were the consequences of this particular process? And what are the insights that can be gained from this particular case studies? Well, the idea is that many states that undergo constitutional change have a choice whether to make a major change or at once with all the excitement that comes from doing that or whether to make the change more gradually. What are the factors that encourage decision makers or people to make one of those choices or the other? And what are some of the consequences that follow from those choices in terms of involving the people, in discussions about constitutional reform, in terms of actually feeling as if everybody owns the constitutional changes that have been made and in terms of implementing them effectively in the future? Most people would say these days that if major constitutional change is occurring, there needs to be an opportunity for public input and public participation. The fact that comes out of a constitutional process is necessarily grounded on the history, the norms, the values and the politics of the moment and the opportunities and challenges that are there at any constitutional moment that might arise to even discern the presence of that moment where white space has been opened up in order for a really substantial constitutional reform. Processes of constitutional building are increasingly global in character. These in terms not just of learning from the experiences of other countries but also because there are many global actors involved even in such a national project such as the building of a new constitution. Another lesson I think that's important is that even though there is this global aspect to national constitution building, you cannot ever play that international or global side because there are local or national constraints on any particular constitution building process. It's important to look at the experiences of other countries while you are doing your own charter change amendments. There is no such thing as one size fits all. That's true. You need to look at your own problems and you need to devise your own solutions. Positive experiences. I like to think of constitution building and constitution and minding process as something very, very positive. It is positive because even though political parties have different ideologies, at the end of the day the constitution is a living, breathing thing that we have to live with that should work for bettering the quality of life of all the citizens. For example, like Burma, we have many ethnic groups and then the people. So we want them to be involved in the process until and unless they are not able to be involved in the constitution building process, then they would not feel that this constitution belongs to them. Each country would have their own constitutional history. At the end of the day, people who want real constitutional reform build on creating that movement. People who want real change to happen in their country and to have a constitutional framework that embodies values that they hold dear, they contribute to that moment. But it cannot be them alone. They will have to capture the popular imagination of the people. So how do you discern that moment? I think you know when it's very right, but at the end of the day, again, things might not go the way you want it to be. So there's politics, especially elite politics that are more powerful than probably initiatives coming from the middle or at the center. But then again, there can be real opportunities where you have a significant coalition of powerful enough forces to really see through a meaningful constitutional change. In those countries, of course, the international aspect has been provided by the advice that international idea has been provided for the informative and participatory phases of the constituent process. Major problem in the constitution building process overall, it all depends on the political motivations of the drafters. Sometimes all those motivations could be very self-driven and self-ambitious manner. So that's why it is very important to build a good constitutional design and architecture generally, and to build a system that could filter out this personal ambitions. You put that in the constitution, you put that in the fundamental law, and no ordinary legislation can reverse that. So that's how important the role of the constitution in terms of maintaining, sustaining democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Well, the role of the constitution and democracy is very related, it's very important, because it is a repression of national consensus on the rules of the game in a country. The comparative approach enables one to locate one's country with some more objectivity and also some more priority from the lens of the issues that were considered important in other contexts or the processes that were undertaken. This could all inform the politics of the day that we have now or even the challenges of the future. Constitutional reform is an ongoing agenda. It will go away because no constitution is permanent. And so it's very important to continue with this kind of learning process. I think many of the choices made by different countries in terms of whether to choose incremental forms of constitutional reforms, or to go with the so-called Big Bang approach is a function of the political, his history, the culture, and the concrete specific local conditions, the dynamics between the opposition and the government. Well, I think the first lesson that comes across from we have 20 very diverse cases, but in all of them you can see that the modalities through which the constitution was changed, whether that was over time incrementally or at once, is, and also with regards to changing the substance of the constitution. We spoke a lot about limiting the powers of the president. The solutions to these problems have been very much driven by the context of the country in question, and it's legal and constitutional history. The key things that I've seen might be helpful for us in the future is trying to understand the different place, the different actors. Understanding how they actually influence the process. In this forum we've been talking about the processes, but those who engage the different actors, are we able to gather together and talk about those interests and how they influence the outcome of a constitutional amendment or a revision, or even a new constitution? People would say these days that if major constitution changes occurring, there needs to be an opportunity for public input and public participation. But depending on whether you're making a new constitution or amending an existing one, the opportunities may be different, and in any event there's a real question about how you properly involve the public.