Buddhist Sentha and Constitutional Law

Abstract

This paper explores how Buddhist monks in shape the meaning of the Constitution without resorting to the courts. Rather than assessing the validity of arguments for or against enfranchisement or presenting a normative case for one side or the other, it provides a nuanced and empirically grounded account of how these opposing understandings of the constitution have been understood and articulated by members of the Buddhist sangha and by religious and political leaders. These debates are grounded against the backdrop of the theoretical underpinnings and historical trajectory of the religious exception to the universal franchise, for such debates are part of broader questions about the correct orientation of the sangha toward secular politics. Moreover, this case is a poignant example of the extent to which constitutional law often operates beyond the reach of the judicial institutions with which it is usually associated.