Constitutions have a tendency to be sticky though.

Hungary, which used to be a pretty stable and all around OK country showed it takes one single political misstep to cause a landslide victory in the next election cycle - meaning supermajority. Then that party took the advantage to re-write the consitution to gerrymander and keep the power for many years a-coming. I think most political parties would do the same, regardless of country. So next time you curse a politician out at the other end of the political spectrum, also thank them, for actually existing. Nothing destroys a country faster than a (quasi) single-party system.

I always find it funny when people complain about 'Hungarian gerrymandering', as it tells me they know nothing about the place and just repeat what liberal rags screech about Hungary. The election reforms made elections simpler and actually reduced the inequalities between electoral districts.

Its also even more funny considering that the Hungarian election system is objectively better than the one in the USA, in that it is more representative.

Constitutions are factually much less sticky than formally, as ultimately words require interpretation. When the law can't be rewritten, it will just be reinterpreted.

Here's a reasonably well known monograph about the topic:

John Hasnas, "The Myth of the Rule of Law", Wisconsin Law Review 199 (1995)

https://medusa.teodesian.net/docs/liberty/MythFinalDraft.pdf

That's not necessarily a good thing. Constitutions need to be able to evolve with the times - otherwise many countries would still be disenfranchising vast swathes of their population (women - and funnily, in some Swiss cantons, women couldn't vote until the 1990s!), or a bunch of other problems. It's absolutely a problem when they become synonymous with a deity's work and thus untouchable. One of the worse examples of this is the US, where with the added benefit of the mess that is common law (precedents and reinterpretations being a thing) it's just a messy vague situation. France was able to add abortion protections to their constitution, meanwhile the US relied on an interpretation of a vague statute to constitutionally protect them, and then a change of opinion in the courts changed that.

That's only true when they are significantly more difficult to amend than the ordinary legislative procedure

As someone else already wrote, Constitutions tend to be reinterpreted - see all the controversies in US on several Amendments and the lack of meaning of "not infringe" these days.