Right now in order to repeal an amendment you have to wait 10 years and the clout of interest groups in government opposing the amendment must outweigh the clout of interest groups supporting the amendment. That all sounds good to me, but what irks me is how the game decides which interest groups oppose the amendment.
Opposition to the amendment is based on how an interest group feels about the amendment's parent law, unless the interest group in question is the one benefiting from the amendment. I don't like this. It leads to situations where some political amendments are almost impossible to repeal. For example if you granted political concessions to the Church IG while passing Total Separation that's going to be very hard to repeal because the only IG that by default opposes Total Separation is the Church IG, but they won't oppose the amendment because they benefit from it. (I know you could still repeal it if you got a leader with certain character ideologies in charge of another IG, but that's a pain sometimes.)
I would like to see a system where opposition to a political concession amendment is based on how interest groups feels about the interest group that received the political concession. If one interest group hates the ideologies of another interest group they should oppose amendments that grant that group more political strength. For example, the Intelligentsia should be the group most opposed to political concessions to the Church because they disagree with the Church on almost every issue.
TL;DR: Repealing political concession amendments is a pain. Opposition to amendment should be based on ideological incompatibility.