Introduction

The constituent assembly is considered non-democratic for several reasons. It failed to adequately represent the diverse voices and interests of the population, leading to an imbalance of power and limited participation. Additionally, the assembly's decision-making process lacked transparency and accountability, further undermining democratic principles.

Lack of Representation
The constituent assembly was criticized for its lack of representation, both in terms of social diversity and political ideologies.

- Social Diversity: The assembly was predominantly composed of elites and political leaders, neglecting the representation of marginalized groups such as women, ethnic minorities, and lower socioeconomic classes. This exclusion resulted in the absence of crucial perspectives and interests, undermining the democratic ideal of inclusivity.
- Political Ideologies: The dominant political parties often held the majority of seats in the assembly, which allowed them to control the decision-making process and marginalize opposing viewpoints. This limited representation of diverse political ideologies diminished the assembly's ability to reflect the true will of the people.

Imbalance of Power
Another factor contributing to the non-democratic nature of the constituent assembly was the imbalance of power among its members.

- Elitist Influence: The assembly was heavily influenced by entrenched political elites and powerful interest groups. Their influence extended beyond the assembly, which resulted in decisions that favored their own interests rather than the broader public.
- Centralization of Power: The assembly often concentrated power in the hands of a few, rather than distributing it broadly. This concentration of power undermined the principle of checks and balances, allowing for potential abuses and disregarding the democratic principle of a decentralized decision-making process.

Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The constituent assembly lacked transparency and accountability, further eroding its democratic legitimacy.

- Closed-door Decision Making: The assembly often made important decisions behind closed doors, without providing sufficient opportunity for public scrutiny or input. This lack of transparency undermined the notion of an open and participatory democratic process.
- Limited Accountability Mechanisms: The assembly lacked adequate mechanisms for holding its members accountable for their actions. This absence of accountability allowed for potential corruption, favoritism, and decisions that did not align with the broader public interest.

Conclusion
The constituent assembly's non-democratic nature primarily stems from its lack of representation, imbalance of power, and absence of transparency and accountability. These shortcomings compromised its ability to truly reflect the will of the people and make decisions in the best interest of the broader population.