Metaphorical hazard

While participating in discussion on governance, one statement that one frequently encounters is the argument that "Constitution is a tool and hence can be discarded and another adapted to suit the circumstances".
This trivializes importance of constitution in that that it devolves authority of constitution to that of an instrument through which state/legislature/executive exercise their authority, another related error is the belief that legislature by virtue of constituted by popular mandate also represents the sovereignty.

This is grievous mistake. In a Democratic republic the sovereignty lies with public, not with any institution even if it is elected by popular vote. The institutions derive their authority from constitution, and hence are sub-ordinate to the documents, which limits the authority vested in them.

Hence unlike the muddled metaphor, constitution is just not your garden shed variety tool. A proper analogy a framework. In fact this is much more apt, in that factors affecting constitution can be divided into two broad categories, just like framework, and have functional similarity.
First is the objectives that we want to achieve, and second is the existing condition of the nation.

First can not be achieved without considering the second, and the constitution and therefore the actual balance of powers will reflect the divergence or convergence between the two. As the prevalent customs change, the constitution too may needed to be changed. However even the power to alter constitution must be subjected to even more strict check than the power vested to legislate or govern.

With the benefit of hindsight (again), I think it will not be a stretch to conclude that our constituent assembly faltered. (And again) It must be noted that there are no perfect constitutions, few good ones, but a hell lot of messed up ones.