A good constitution defines a game that is fun for players (politicians) to play and is fun for spectators (voters) to watch. If the game is more fun to play by following the rules than by breaking them---if peer esteem and spectator admiration depend on the rules being followed---then the players will follow the rules.
A good constitution defines a game that is interesting.
Players may be more likely to care about peer esteem if they all come from the same social class, or if they all reject class divisions and derive their shared identity from a collection of common values instead. What kind of play spectators find it fun to watch is likely a moving target. Figuring it out is the art of politics.
What is probably universal is the spectator taste for a show of skill and grit. If a player stands a better chance of signalling his skill by following the rules rather than breaking them, he will follow the rules. If the game rewards grit, and grit is what spectators would like to see, the players will keep playing the game.
A game whose outcome is determined by the player characteristics that are easy to see at the outset is not a fun game to watch. In this sense, hereditary monarchy sans court intrigue is not fun. Similarly, meritocracy when merit (e.g., an advanced degree from a top university) is easy to observe is not fun either.
Some randomness in the outcome of an otherwise meritocratic game may add to the fun by forcing the players to employ skill and grit in order to overcome the handicap imposed by chance. Chance can be replaced by seemingly gratuitously complicated rules, deciphering which would require skill.
If politics is not boring, it stands a chance of being healthy.
