France is the earliest country in Continental Europe setting up the codified constitution. In the current constitutional system of France, there is a president with fairly concentrated power, [23] but its political situation also shows unrest. In the presidential election of 2002, the most competitive candidates were the current president Chirac, the premier Jospin and the rightist front national chairman Le Pan. However, the leader of the far-right party known to take "French First" as its slogan, Le Pan won the first round of voting unexpectedly, which hit the headlines of European presses and remarked as "an earthquake of French politics", "the 9·11 of Europe" "a brick thrown into the pool of European democracy" and even sarcastically "unless the French have lost their minds, as a country which likes to lecture people on democracy and human rights, it is hard to imagine France having this confusion and ridiculous situation." [24] So far as this case is concerned, although Le Pan was failed at last, a lot of people expressed their concerns: "Le Pan phenomenon" highlights a new crisis of European traditional democratic politics, and it will undoubtedly be a tough mission for European politicians to stop this phenomena from overspreading and growing worse. [25]
Several years ago, an influential presidential impeachment also happened in Korea. Roh Moo-hyun took the presidential office on Feb. 25, 2003, and was later implicated in the scandal of his trusted follower who illegally collected political funds....When the Korean procuratorial organ''s investigation results came fundamentally clear, the Grand National Party advanced the proposal for impeachment on March 9, 2004. And on March 12, the Korean national assembly passed the proposal by absolute majority of two-thirds votes...after the president was suspended, his duties devolved on the premier...On May 14 of the same year, the Korean constitutional court intervened in the judgment and decided the case to reject the proposal of impeachment, and the case was finally closed. [26] According to the final settlement of this case, it seems the decision of the constitutional court appeased the political conflicts, Roh Moo-hyun also restored the presidential power, and the political crisis was dissolved at last. However, by looking at the whole process of the case, it was full of variability and suspicion, ups and downs, [27] and caused a big shock to the political situation in Korea.
Looking back upon the presidential election of US in 2000, the main conflicts of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party focused on whether the manual recount was legal and valid. However, there is no clear provision about this in the federal laws, neither in the laws of Florida. So the legality or validity of the manual recount became a highly controversial matter at that time. In fact, it was not just a technical issue, but related to the rule settings of the democratic practice and the value of constitutional government. So we can see that the systematic and functional drawbacks reflected in the constitutional dynamic operation and practice can also cause political unrest and local turbulence within certain ranges. Of course, we can also predict that, with the modern technical revolution developing with every passing day and the social conditions changing momently, new problems will surely be further highlighted, which will undoubtedly cause new challenges to every country in promoting constitutional government in terms of value and system.
III Constitutional Order: Justicial demand of changing societies
In the current changing societies, the crisis and political unrest will be bound to cause highly intensive political situation. Just like the American scholar Owen Yang described, "a normal political process is suddenly interrupted, lasting for a short time, rising possibility of violence, and exerting a great influence on the stability of some systems (or relation patterns) of international politics." [28] To maintain a stable political situation and order is a realistic topic currently facing all countries, especially the developing ones.
1.Huntington''s political order theory and its dilemma
Huntington''s political order theory is mainly embodied in his book "Political Order of Changing Societies", in which, he concluded from deep researches on the real situations of developing countries during the 1950s~1960s that, "...just like the economic growth in some ways relies on the relation between investment and consumption, the political order in some ways relies on the development of the political system and on whether new social power can be mobilized to join in the politics." [29] In Huntington''s opinion, the reason why some developing countries are in turbulence is not that they are poor and backward; instead it is that they are trying to realize the modernization, which is the root of their unstable politics. According to this logic, the social status of highly traditional and of highly modernization would be similarly stable and ordered, and those in the process of modernization would be more likely to be instable and disorderly. So he set a proposition that "modernity produces stability, while modernization causes destabilization." [30] and "the instable politics is the inevitable outcome of modernization and the cost that modernization must pay". [31] With regard to the relationship of stability and reform/revolution, Huntington put forward that, "the revolution is one side of modernization, which could not happen in social forms in any time. It is a specific historical phenomena rather than a universal category." [32] With regard to how the developing countries root out the political turbulence and decline and get real political development, Huntington stressed time and again that, "the priority is not the liberty, but to establish a legal public order. Naturally human can live with order but no liberty, but can not live with liberty but no order." [33] So we can see that Huntington''s political theory at the early stage put the order at the opposing position of the liberty and highlighted the importance of the order in maintaining developing countries'' political stability, showing obvious tendency of authoritarianism. In his opinion, the real political development can only be achieved when authorities and orders are established, while the political authorities and political orders are established with systematism of politics. Therefore, he urged the third world to give the priority to build a powerful government in their political development practices so as to get the political order and maintain the stability. Thereafter, Huntington made some correction to this somewhat radical theory on political development. In his book "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony published in 1981, he expressed a political view of certain constitutionalism, which was called the "American Creed" by him. In details, the "American Creed" mentioned in this book are the values of democracy widely accepted by American people, which reflects a strong "American-centric" complex. But anyway, Huntington has begun to address the democracy and realize the important theoretical value and practical significance of the constitutional order. However, on the questions of "what is the constitutional order" and "how to realize the constitutional order", Huntington never shared his opinions and views.
