Dialogic justice in a constitutional engineering resistant to dialogic constitutionalism

The case of El Salvador

Abstract

Dialogic constitutionalism defends that inter-institutional dialogue and conversation between state institutions and citizens to interpret the Constitution must be a decisive criterion of legitimacy. And there are certainly good reasons to accept that this is in a democratic interest. But, despite the feverish temptation that can arise from the emotional content of the concepts of dialogue and deliberation, the adoption of the ideas of said constitutionalism cannot be unreflective, since it requires a normative design in accordance with certain demands that in some constitutions could only be satisfied through profound constitutional amendments. In this context, this work analyzes the concepts of dialogic constitutionalism and justice; determines the difficulties derived from the Salvadoran constitutional engineering to implement it; and it examines with a descriptive and critical view whether there are dialogic justice practices adopted by Salvadoran constitutional court.