This article compares constitutional amendments in China and Taiwan to explore the long shadow cast by the Chinese encounter with ‘modernity’ on their divergent constitutional roads. It observes that in China, preambular changes have been the characteristic of the amendments to the 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China, while the rule-conformity feature of Taiwan's multiple rounds of constitutional revision indicates that the preservation of the formal identity of the 1946 Constitution of the Republic of China is central to Taiwan's constitutional transformation. The article argues that the prominence of the preamble in China's constitutional amendments reflects the programmatic character of its socialist constitution, which is seen as an instrument for progress and emancipation through revolutionary forces. In contrast, Taiwan's rigorous observance of amendment rules underscores the pivotal role of legality in its constitutional development. Progress and continuity underlie the respective necessary legitimating conditions for constitutional amendment in China and Taiwan. Tracing the revolution-progress and the legality-continuity nexuses to the Chinese quest for liberation from Western imperialism, this article suggests that modernity guides both China and Taiwan in maintaining the legitimacy of their respective constitutions. China's path towards modernity tells a story of constitutional struggle in the prehistory of the Global South.

In many African countries with hegemonic-party or de facto one-party systems, political leaders have historically exploited ostensibly proper constitutional amendments to undermine constitutionalism, a practice raising questions about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of such amendments. This article argues that amendment legitimacy is contingent on achieving ‘broad consensus’, a concept endorsed by the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. Traditional amendment procedures, such as supermajorities and referendums, while crucial, have proven to be imperfect proxies for ensuring such broad consensus. To more effectively safeguard the core constitutional rules of democratic governance, this article contends that political parties must be recognised as key sites of power division and checks and balances. Accordingly, constitutional amendment procedures should require some level of cross-party approval for key amendments, thus preventing individual political groups, regardless of their dominance, from unilaterally altering fundamental rules of the game. This approach would not only enhance the legitimacy of amendments but also serve as a safeguard against contemporary forms of democratic backsliding, where incumbents exploit formal processes to undermine democratic competition. While this process might make constitutional changes more difficult, it would apply only to a narrow set of fundamental aspects of constitutional democracy. Moreover, it does not necessarily conflict with popular self-governance (and its majoritarian expression), but instead calls for an inclusive re-imagining of majoritarianism.