British author and historian Ferdinand Mount once had a perceptive opinion about the nature of constitutions. He made the point that no document defining a nation's core values and laws can ever be entirely balanced or have a perfect structure. The most important thing is whether or not it is generally regarded as equitable and useful.

Mount compares this observation to a piece of furniture that has been used for many generations in a family home, such as an old wooden table. Due to frequent use, the table may eventually develop uneven surfaces, possibly with one leg being shorter than the others or small cracks appearing all over it. But even with these flaws, the table is still valuable if it remains a reliable and practical spot for the family to get together. In a similar vein, a constitution must satisfy the fundamental requirements of fairness and practicality but is not expected to be perfect.

According to Mount's viewpoint, constitutions are dynamic documents that are impacted by societal shifts, historical contexts, and differing viewpoints. As societies develop and new problems emerge, they undergo revisions and reinterpretations. Making sure these documents are still applicable and equitable for all citizens is crucial.

Ferdinand Mount was born in 1940 and has had a lengthy and illustrious career in politics, academia, and journalism. He is well-versed in discussing the complex nature of constitutions and their significance in forming nations because his writings frequently reflect on the complexities of political philosophy and governance.