Constitution- Savior or Destroyer of Democracy ?

One of the things that always troubled political scientists was the existence of a constitution in a republic. Why must a democratic government of, for and by the people establish and defend itself on the basis of one, often anachronic book? Aren't people the ultimate judges of democracy? Most notable critics of this were anarchists who defended that the best form of government was at an individual level and democracy was the biggest threat to individuality. A constitution according to them is just another form of repression. Its just an eulogy for dictatorship. Instead of a Tsar, Fuhrer or a Despot, the entirety of a country's law-making methodology now rests upon one book. Constitunalists or defendants of the Constitution claim that unlike the aforementioned leaders, a book cannot become despotic hence it rightly protects the will of the people. Agreed, a book can't become dictatorial but it can definately be contradictory to the people's will and then will it be justified to uphold the constitution over popular interest? And even though there is a remedy for this in law namely constitutional amendments, these are few and far in number. America has passed only 27 amendments in over 200 years. It is incredibly hard to pass an amendment and harder for the amendment to be implemented. And despite all these problems and misgivings in a constitution, the role the constitution plays is unquestionable. If there was no constitution, we'd never come to an consensus. If there was no constitution, they'd be no law-making procedures forget laws that protect induviduals. Without the constitution, they'd be no democracy to save or destroy, to shelter or burn. So instead of interpreting constitution as a despotic novel it is best to consider it the Bible that has empowered citizens and enfranchised them.