Why do we need a new theory for justifying constituent assemblies?

Abstract Elected constituent assemblies (CAs) have become ubiquitous when a complete constitutional replacement is demanded. Many have taken note of CAs’ failure to establish lasting democratic regimes and have suggested specific institutional designs, frequently including extraordinary and specialized unicameral assemblies elected by virtue of proportional electoral formulas and functioning with a simple majority rule, subject to an exit referendum. This design is not neutral as regards its outcome; more outcome-based reasons must be introduced to the debate. Differentiating short-term sociological legitimacy based on specific electoral preferences from long-term sociological legitimacy based on future self-government can help elucidate the problem. We should rethink the role of electoral mechanisms in supporting claims for the legitimacy of CAs and their constitutional proposals.