I’d argue that a Constitution is a set of rules and conventions that everyone in the polity agrees to abide by, whether by discussion or tradition. The liberties that form the basis of the English constitutional tradition, for instance, go back to Time Immemorial. The fact that there wasn’t any great degree of democratic involvement in the Charter of Henry I or Magna Carta for that matter doesn’t make them any less Constitutional in nature. In fact, it could be argued that a form of traditional constitutionalism that recognizes and values popular involvement in decision-making is required to formalize democracy, which is something that might explain why democracy takes hold in some places, eg Athens, England, Scandinavia, but has a pretty shaky hold elsewhere eg Sparta, Brussels, or other parts of the world one might mention.

Jonah might, however, have a supporter in the late philosopher Sir Stuart Hampshire, who was Warden of my Oxford college. He maintained, after Heracelitus, that justice was conflict and that only a state that allowed popular discussion of issues could be described as just, which would rule out any constitution established by mere tradition as unjust. Interestingly, he always considered himself a Socialist.