The failure of any constitution-making process is deeply disappointing for some and a source of satisfaction for others. The satisfaction of the latter may be short, or at least not long-lived, however, if it subsequently turns out that the changes were necessary, or even demonstrably useful. Initial failure in a constitutional project is relatively common, for reasons that range from the difficulty of the process to the novelty and perceived significance of the issues at stake. Experience suggests, however, that, at least where the rationale for the constitutional proposals was sufficiently soundly based, failure may not be the end of the story. It follows that it makes sense to take stock after such an event: to identify what is lost that was of value; to determine what, if anything, might be improved, if another constitutional moment presents itself; and to consider whether constitutionalisation should be attempted again, or whether other mechanisms can be used instead.