Is the «veil of ignorance» in constitutional choice a myth? An empirical test
In this paper, we propose an empirical test of the theory of the veil of ignorance in the Canadian context. Adopting a cognitive perspective, we read the Canadian Constitution as an indication of the motivations that the Constitution drafters had at the time of adoption so as to assess whether the Constitution reflects more their own private interests than the general interest. We proceed in three steps. First we formulate a conceptual framework based on power analysis to distinguish three distributions of power that decision-makers want to maintain or modify through their choices. Second we detail a content analysis method that helps us systematically unveil the power relations present in the Constitutional documents. Third, we describe and discuss our results, showing that the two Constitutional documents we analysed reflect the general interest more than the constitution drafters’ private interests.