Well, a constitution can be anti-democratic if it cannot be changed by the people. Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions.
In true democracies the constitution can be changed, and is regularly.
So basically, being a democracy and having a constitution are orthogonal.
That is the opposite position to "having a constitution is anti-democratic", which is the position taken by AaronFriel's comment.
> Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions.
Ehh... my impression was that the bigger problem, from a standard American perspective, is that loads of dictatorships have constitutions which are everything American evangelical democracy dreams of, but which they aren't too concerned with adhering to.
> Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions.
In many cases the issue is opposite. Many populist autocrats abuse democracies with constitution that can be changed too easily, so after one big win in election they can dismantle all checks and balances and independent institutions in the country.
> It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws.
then having a constitution is a pure exercise in anti-democracy. Are we calling that "unfortunate" now?