Un-Codified Constitutions

The UK has an un-codified, unitary and flexible constitution. It is codified because our rules and laws are in diffuse and varied sources as oppose to one single authoritative document. It is unitary because a central government controls policy for the whole country on the constituencies and constituent’s behalf and it is flexible because the constitution can be easily changed/altered by passing or abolishing laws. Un-codified constitutions are un-authoritative, not entrenched so easy to change and it is not judiciable because there is no written document in which judges can rule. In the UK, we do not have a written document to outline our constitution; instead we have a set of core principles to follow in many different sources that have
the same status as each other. In this essay I will be discussing the core principles that we follow as part of our un-codified system. These are; parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law, parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy in order to assess how far the UK still upholds its fundamental principles.
In the UK parliament has supreme power and so has the ability to shape or reshape the constitution itself, parliament can make, unmake and remove any law it wishes. This means that we have parliamentary sovereignty. But, this principle is now at odds with the UK’s membership in the E.U. The European Union has supranational powers meaning it has the ability to make a country’s decisions for it. This means that parliament do not in fact have supreme power over how our country is run, the EU do. Another problem similar to this is how devolution has resulted in a quasi-federalist state as the parliament do not challenge decisions made by devolved bodies as England have very little say in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish affairs now the powers have been separated. For example this is a problem outlined in the ‘West-Lothian’ or ‘English’ question where the question arises “how is it fair that Scotland can vote and pass opinion on English matters but English cannot pass judgement or opinion on Scottish matters?”. Another problem is how parliament may have the legal right to amend or abolish any rules it wishes but not the political ability to as it may prove largely dis-popular. Parliament has to keep pressure groups, the public, trade partners and international organizations happy. On the other hand, If parliament so wishes, they can leave the EU, which shows that it still has supreme power. All in all, any loss of parliament’s legislative authority therefore happens because parliament allows it to. This power has been shown recently by David Cameron’s decision not to be a part of the Euro to withhold British interests and tradition. Also, it can be seen as a strength to be a part of the EU because member states can achieve more when working collectively this can be called ‘pooled sovereignty’ as all the supreme powers are coming together like during wars or large international decisions. So it could be said that the UK constitution does not uphold its parliamentary sovereignty in its traditional way as the power is being abused.

The rule of law is a key principle in the UK constitution.
It says that law should rule all and applies to ALL, irrelevant of your status. It means that even government is subject to checks and constraints and still not above the law. It ensures that public officials use their power reasonably and do not exceed the limits – administrative law enforces this. Also, the rule of law establishes a common ground between government and the people which could make electorates feel better represented as our ministers have the same rights as we do. Thus, minimising the problem of things like partisan dealignment, to name one. However, parliament is sovereign and so can do what it wishes to our constitution hence, is above the law. Parliamentary privilege is another problem, this is how MP’s and peers have complete freedom on what they say in parliament (libel and slander are no longer problems). The queen, being head of state, is also not properly subject to the law. So the rule of law does not apply to EVERYONE. The rule of law is still being upheld. But, it is not applicable to all, but the minority can be seen to have a right to be
exempt.
Parliamentary government is how there is a fusion of powers between the executive and parliament in the UK meaning that they are ‘overlapping and interlocking institutions’ and government governs through parliament as it is accountable to parliament. This is good because government cannot do as they wish whilst in power and means that they are controlled and elective dictatorship is effectively controlled. An example of a problem that arises with the lack of an accountable government was in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe was the prime minister in the 80’s. When in power he unilaterally assumed the position of ZANU leader and anyone who questioned him mysteriously disappeared. In stark contrast, elective dictatorship is still a problem because of the close connection between government and parliament and the ability of executive to take on parliaments sovereign powers and make decisions with less intervention from parliament. There is obviously still a parliamentary government even if the power, in theory, could be abused. In the UK the Monarchy lost its power a long time ago.
But, it still retains its status as a constitutionally significant body. The monarchy’s powers were transferred to ministers accountable to parliament. This means that we have a constitutional monarchy. Effectively the monarchy ‘does not reign but rules’. Even though the monarchy have not political powers, they are still important as they promote popular allegiance and patriotism. They can also be used in situation such as coalition governments to make the penultimate decision on who runs our country and various other decisions that implement the country. Walter Bagehot says that they have the right to be informed and consulted, to warn and to encourage. But the disadvantages would be that the monarchy knows they are an authority and may not take any public preference on a decision as they are not answerable to anyone. Especially when the monarchy has not the right to pass comment on our democratic system. As of late, controversy has occurred at the hand of Prince Charles and his opinions on matters deemed irrelevant to him. It is safe to say that the UK does still uphold the principle of having a constitutional
monarchy.
In conclusion, after evaluating both sides of the argument that the essay question has posed, the principles of the UK constitution are not upheld completely, but, they are for the most part. The biggest problem that indicates that they are not being upheld is how the minority sometimes abuse the powers given in our democracy. For example, we do have a parliamentary government that is effective because it means that our views are represented by government and elective dictatorship is eliminated but the odd few may use their relationship with parliament to befriend and abuse powers. If every government did this, there would be a massive upheaval from the public on our democratic system but as the electorate seem content with how things are run, it is safe to say that it is not a problem occurred on a regular basis because the party want to keep the electorate happy to stay in power. It is evident that the UK constitution does still uphold its fundamental principles but the minority of people who abuse their power are showing there are flaws in the constitutional system.