Constitutions remain a puzzle. They are not conscious falsehoods, yet they are clearly not in any simple sense “true”. Nor are they a matter of self-deception on the part of their drafters, being as much intentionally aspirational or programmatic as regulatory. There is some virtue in Finer's characterization of them as “autobiographical” but even this becomes problematic when we speak of constitutions in the ex-colonial world which are often documents more easily made sense of in the context of other constitutional documents than the realities of the polities they supposedly regulate. All these issues are brought into very sharp focus by the experience of a country such as Mozambique, which in its short history since independence in 1975 has adopted two quite different societal projects in the form (amongst other things) of constitutional documents. The differences between these two projects are obvious and are commented on extensively in what follows. The categories utilized in both, it may be noted, are rooted entirely in European political and intellectual experience and, arguably, what is striking about the liberal and socialist options that they embody is not so much their (highly advertized) differences but what they have in common, including a profound intolerance and a determination to remake the world in their own image. Seen in this way the study of constitutions and constitution-making have interesting things to tell us about the processes of Westernization of our world.
Mozambique's new constitution came into force on 30 November, 1990, replacing the Independence Constitution of 25 June, 1975. It eliminated the leading role of the Frelimo party, introduced multi-party politics, and changed the official name of the country from the People's Republic of Mozambique to the Republic of Mozambique.