UK has partly an unwritten and uncodified constitution. Such a system, like any other, has their advantages and disadvantages, but because of their unusual system there are a lot of disputes around it. A big question at hand is: “Should the constitution be fully written or not?” A codified constitution means that all the points and laws are written and could be read, such a constitution typically occurs at some critical moment in a country’s history. An uncodified constitution is one that was formed naturally with historical development. In order to assess, whether UK should have a codified constitution it is necessary to consider such issues like flexibility and entrenchment, clarity and constitutional sources, historical development.
The British constitution is quite flexible and all its constitutional laws are not guarded from changes. Any change could be made by the parliament who are the main and the most powerful body in the British political system. Parliament has ultimate legal authority and freedom to make and enforce any political decisions without limits; so any law can be easily changed with a simple act of Parliament. Sometimes such simple procedures are convenient and even essential. This was shown when on the election on May in 2010 were there was no elected majority from any party. Such a situation was not mentioned in the constitution, but because of the adaptable possibility of the UK constitution, a solution for such a problem was found very quickly. However it makes Parliament too powerful, in that in spite of rule of the law, the possibility to change laws places parliament above it. Theoretically, this goes against all democratic principles that the British political system is based on. In my opinion, every legally guarded constitution in reality could be manipulated or even ignored by the leadership of the country, therefore the only real protection for the constitution there are the people, because the English Parliament, like any government in every democratic country, it is elected by the people to protect their interests and they could be easily abolished by them. Citizens could ignore laws which are against their rights or are not approved by them hence parliament has real political power to facilitate changes on basic constitutional laws as long as the people agree to follow these changes. No matter, what laws the parliament pass, in the context of the constitution or not, the public have the last say as it affects them and because of their power to abolish current parliament. Although the UK constitution is not protected legally, it protected politically.
Another important question is quantity of constitutional sources and clarify. UK constitution has a lot of sources such a: Parliamentary statues, Constitutional conventions, common low, historical principles and authoritative works, traditions, EU laws. Such big quantity of sources makes constitution vague and unclear. If constitution is not fully written in one single document there is no way for citizens to be fully aware of their rights, because part of them unwritten and undetermined, and as result people`s rights are not fully circumscribed. So, lack of knowledge amongst the people caused deficient level of protecting civil liberties, what is inadmissible for democratic country. Uncodified constitution is not clarified for citizens; they do not understand the concept of it, because it has not any concrete form. However, any codified constitution cannot contain every possible situation and suggest solution for every problem. Advantage of unwritten British constitution, which develop historically, that for such long period of time a lot of issues happened and solutions for them were found, and even if they were not written, they become a part of constitution and do not need to be discussed any more. This, again, was illustrated clearly with the May 2010 election, because even if principle of coalition between two parties and combined govern is not usual for UK politic system, constitution, which was so easily changed to react on changing circumstances, have fixed rules to deal with situation now. It is hard to imagine that somebody can predict all, such unusual problems and find effective solution for all of them. So, even if some issues are not written as a document and cannot be protected in court there are some norms, which developed traditionally, and cannot be all written. It is not a serious problem as long as such system works.
The main strength of UK constitution is that it was developed naturally, historically. It provides a coherent system and establishes relations between all political institutions in country, which were set naturally. What even more important, is that system was evolved over the time and accorded by British people. Every process and power separation was set in the right time and without public discontents. Power came from Monarch to public, from one person to people, which is natural process, it is how democracy works, its main principle, and such procedure took place in every European country, but in England it was the most calm and natural process. Exclude Oliver Cromwell, who was quite cruel to current king, English people were not tortured by any dictator. In contrast, almost every country in Europe has period of dictate, totalitarianism and terror in their history, so their low does not work as good as English. The typical problem of old constitutions is its fixed principle that not actual now, UK constitution has not this problem because of their adaptability and flexibility. It was shown clearly by the House of Lords Act of 1999. The main power and the last say always was in Lords and monarchs hands, an in case if UK constitution was fully written and inflexible, it would be hard to change this order, it could be a lot of discussions because of it or even military conflict, because nobody wants to let their power gone, well known how Russian royal family react on try to take their authority out of them, and how horrible were consequences for them and the whole country. In England, when Parliament decided to take some power from House of Lords they did it very easy, quite fast and without great difficulty or efforts for such important act. So, UK constitution works very good, better than a lot of codified constitutions, and “if it ain`t broke, don`t fix it”.
Because of all arguments shown above, I think that UK constitution should not be fully written. It works not worse than any written constitution, their low respected by politics and population not less that written. Every bills, rules, and even fixed lows work as long as people want to follow them, no matter they written or no, if government wants to flaunt democratic procedures that fact that all lows written does not stop it. Britain has survive very well until now with unwritten constitution, and it shows that such type of constitution is suitable for English public, and in fact it guard civil rights very well, it provide very high level of life for citizens, higher that a lot of countries with codified constitutions do. So I do not see enough important reasons to codify it.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
In this work MGT 434 Week 5 Team Assignment Employee Handbook Assignment you can find the review on following aspects:…
- 529 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
The constitution of the United Kingdom is the sum of laws and principles that make up the body politic of the United Kingdom. It concerns both the relationship between the individual and the state, and the functioning of the legislature, the executive and judiciary.…
- 407 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
United Kingdom changing radically with Labour’s landslide victory , the greatest since 1945. Led by Tony Blair, the party promised an ambitious programme of constitutional reforms which they themselves claimed would lead to “the most ambitious and far reaching changes to the constitution undertaken by any government in this century” (Hazell, Sinclair, 1999, p42)These reforms were also pioneered by Gordon Brown when he became Blair’s successor in 2007. While some of these amendments were successfully implemented others were abandoned or were watered down greatly. Also, the planned reversal of many of these reforms and other amendments made by the recent coalition Government must also be deliberated , however, as the coalition Government has only been in in power two years it is harder to see if they have had any real effect yet . Therefore this essay will focus on the constitutional reforms made by New Labour and will discuss that while they have made a difference, the impact has been limited and far less radical than they first proposed.…
- 1694 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
There have been many constitutional reforms since 1997 that is progressive towards a more democratic system, however it is not a complete democracy and there are still parts of the constitution could be improved. In 1997 Labour government came to power, with tony blair as prime minister, later Gordon Brown came to power between 2007 to 2010 have made a series of constitutional reforms. This was due to the fact that many practices of british politics were out of date, and therefore sought to modernise the constitution. Another main issue was that the central parliament, Westminster has too much power and therefore the labour party sought to decentralize and distribute the power towards other regions.…
- 1175 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
In this essay, I will be analysing the strengths of the British constitution and comparing it to a codified constitution, I will also discuss its weaknesses and whether ‘extremely strong’ is an exaggeration and it lacks the qualities of a reliable constitution.…
- 861 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The UK’s unwritten constitution, formed of Acts of Parliament [AoP], Royal Prerogative [RP], Constitutional Convention [CC] and Case Law [CL], prompts much debate about the ease of which constitutional change can be introduced. A written constitution is, by definition and practice, hard to alter however it remains to be seen whether it is any easier to change an unwritten constitution. While the natural answer seems to be that it is easier to alter, practical considerations seem to indicate an opposite reality.…
- 899 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
A constitution is either a written (codified) or unwritten (uncodified) body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state is acknowledged to be governed. Generally, a constitution is only written after a major event. In the case of America their constitution was written in 1787, after the American Revolutionary War came to a close.…
- 835 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Whether there is a constitution in the United Kingdom has been a controversial topic. The term ‘constitution’ itself is open to different interpretations. Some prescriptive authors argue that a constitution must satisfy a set of specific characteristics – for instance that it must be entrenched and superior to other laws, which is attributed to the people. Others consider that constitutions are codes of norms which aspire to regulate the allocation of powers, functions, and duties among the various agencies and officers of government, and to define the relationship between these and the public. While some believed that a constitution is as simple as ‘no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also.’…
- 1266 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
There is an argument that the UK constitution is indeed not fit for purpose. The UK constitution by…
- 1184 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
A constitution is a set of rules that govern the government itself and defines the extent of government power and limits its exercise. The power of government bodies and politicians can be limited by external and legal constraints. A codified constitution codifies the major powers and responsibilities of government institutions within a single authorative document. A codified constitution codifies higher law. The first codified constitution was the US constitution but now all liberal democracies have one except for the UK, Israel and New Zealand.…
- 709 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
One of the core functions of a constitution is to ensure the accountable and responsible exercise of power by those entrusted with it, and that they are called to account when they are not. Through elections, Parliament is elected through a public and democratic procedure, and it is only imperative that they are held accountable in a similar approach.…
- 2004 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
A constitution is a set of rules that seeks to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government. The constitution creates limited government so the government is checked and restrained therefore providing protection for the individual and their rights. the UK constitution is uncodified, which means that it is not all written down in one document therefore entrenched creating a higher law like that of America; it is split into several different locations, statute law, common law, conventions, works of constitutional authority and EU law and treaties. This means that the UK constitution is not entrenched or codified and sources such as common law and convention are not written down but are traditions and customs, the way government has always done things. The constitution is fit for purpose as it worked during the 2010 election when the outcome saw no overall winner and a coalition was created, it allowed for this to be done in just 5 days where as a codified constitution would have been much more ridged and have taken longer to work around or amend.…
- 850 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Parliament cannot vote to change or abolish it. In order to change constitutional law, the federal government and at least two-thirds of the provinces with 50 percent of the population must agree.…
- 1679 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
The constitution should be allowed to be changed but only on a vote; the President or the senate would not be allowed to make changes without the peoples vote. Along with that, it must only be changed to the needs of the country not its…
- 509 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Firstly, Parliamentary sovereignty is not a constitutional relic. It may seem to be the, as part of the UK constitution continues to rely on extremely early Acts such as The Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights Act , however, these statutes continue to remain as they set out important constitutional principles. Even since 1215, it has been recognised that it is important to limit the power of the monarch, and transfer powers to parliament, in interest of balance, and the separation of powers. Up until present day, supporting Dicey’s summary above, UK courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament, this is unlike many Supreme Courts in other countries, for example the USA, who are bound to reject legislation which contradicts the written constitutional rights. For example in the case of Mortensen v. Peters , it notes that in the event of a contradiction between international…
- 793 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays