The United Kingdom Constitution

Question: Describe about the advantages of a written constitution far outweigh the disadvantages and the United Kingdom constitution should now be codified? Answer: At present there is no written constitution in the United Kingdom and in its place, there is a collection of laws and customs through which the political system of the country is governed. The UK and Israel are the only two democracies of the world where a written constitution is not present. The Constitution can be described as a set of rules to which the actions of the government are controlled in order to make sure that these actions are lawful. Therefore, it implies something that is much more significant than the idea of legality according to which, it is required that the official conduct should be according to prefixed rules. At the same time, it is also important that a constitution has the capacity to vary with the society. In the present assignment, the statement has been considered according to which the advantages of the written Constitution are much more than its disadvantages and therefore, it is time that the constitution of the UK should be codified. One major argument that needs to be considered in this regard is the fact that by enshrining the constitutional laws and customs in a document, clarity can be achieved for those who are working within the system and it will also be easier for the persons who want to scrutinise it. One more argument that is generally given in support of the need for having a written constitution is that of checks and balances. At present, it is considered that the judiciary is in a good Position regarding its ability to act as a check against the actions of the Parliament. Therefore it is argued that this power of the judiciary can be increased by a written constitution. It is believed by a large number of people that in case of party enjoys majority in the House of Commons; such political party is in a position to change the Constitution. An example in this regard can be given of the reforms introduced by former Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the House of Lords. As a result of the majority, he succeeded in completely changing half of the legislature without any referendum or other means through which consensus can be checked. In such a case, a written constitution would certainly have acted as a safeguard because it makes it difficult to change. For example, for this purpose, either 2/3 majority is required in both houses or such changes need to be passed by referendum. Another argument that is generally given in favor of written constitution is the protection from extremists. It is claimed that a written constitution may offer protection in case an extremist comes to power and wishes to disregard the democratic procedures. It is also claimed t hat without the written constitution, there is no Bill of Rights in the UK that can protect the citizens from the actions of an over powerful government. Although the Human Rights Act is present in this regard but it provides the protection because the judges can only give a ruling that the new legislations are noncompliant with the Act and at the same time, if it so wishes, the government can even ignore these rulings. At the same time, it is also easy to amend the Human Rights Act and for this purpose only a simple majority is required in both the Houses. On the other hand, this fact cannot be denied that the United Kingdom has been able to survive very well without a written Constitution. The public is not looking for a written Constitution because the conventions governing the political procedure are well understood by it. At the same time, there is another perspective from which this issue can be considered and it lies in the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Parliament. According to this doctrine, Parliament is considered as supreme and only the Parliament has the power to make or break the laws. However the Parliament cannot bind its successors or at the same time the Parliament cannot be bound by its predecessors. If the notion of a written constitution is adopted by the UK, this doctrine may become totally irrelevant and it may not be in a position to execute itself as it did in the past due to the reason that the judges rule upon the written constitutions. In the United Kingdom, the judges are unelected and as a result, it is undemocratic to take away the power from the elected representatives of the people and give the same to the judges who sometimes tend to be reactionary. Flexibility is one of the most prominent benefits provided by the present system. If the government has the political mandate, the Constitution can be reformed by the government for example, as was done in the case of the House of Lords. On the other hand, if a two third majority was required in both the Houses, it was possible that such a measure may not have been passed. At this point, it also needs to be noted that in countries like the US where a written constitution is present, it is almost impossible to change the Constitution. The question arises in this regard at how we can become sure of the fact that what is best for the country at present will also remain the best for the country for the coming years also. UK is a unitary state and the Parliament at Westminster is the only body that can legislate for the country and all the laws in the UK including the law related with the Constitution can be enacted, amended or repealed by the Queen in Parliament. No specific procedure ha s been prescribed for changing the law and even the most significant laws can be changed with the help of single majority. This means that the decision-making process has not been muted in any way as a result of the previous legislation. Apart from these obvious points, it is also a fact that having an unwritten constitution has caused concern in the United Kingdom as there is no single document that stands alone but this fact also makes the position unique in itself. The position has somehow managed to operate effectively and proved itself to be an enduring system of governance. Although concerns have been raised from time to time, the nature of unwritten Constitution has effectively ironed out these concerns and has been working quite efficiently. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom is partly based on the Acts of Parliament and also on judicial decisions as well as on political practice and on the detailed procedures that have been established by different organs of government to perform their own tasks. In this way, the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom provides a comprehensive and complex system of governance which has worked well in the United Kingdom. It can also be argued in this regard that it is not necessary that by adopting a written constitution, the current flexibility may be lost altogether. However it is not possible for the written Constitution to contain all the detailed rules on which the government depends. At this way, a written constitution generally evolves a wide range of customary rules and practices that are usually easier to change that they changed the constitution itself and at the same time, the constant evolution of these rules and practices also reduce the requirement for fo rmal amendment in the written Constitution. But the same thing is already happening in the United Kingdom where the Constitution is evolving with time in order to fulfill the demands of the people. Therefore as mentioned above, each constitution varies with the society. United Kingdom has long established doctrines and principles that are embedded in the minds of the people. It has resulted in the creation of the present society and despite several obstacles (that are present in case of credit and as well as the unwritten constitution), it has succeeded in developing one of the finest legal systems of the world and at the same time an excellent system of governance. There are a lot of people who believe that the system of unwritten constitution is working well in the country. It has been created over a long time and it has also seen the country grow into its present form. The present system has been developed on the basis of not only the great events but also on the great minds of the region which have given it a distinct flavor of pride. There is nothing of its kind and certainly the system is functional. Therefore, why should we tried to fix something that is not broken. Bibliography Bruce Ackerman, 2007 , The Living Constitution, Harvard Law Review, 7, vol. 120, May Said Amir Arjomand (ed.), 2007, Constitutional and Political Reconstruction (Leiden: Brill) Hiranmay Bagchi, 1969, Inside Major Constitutions: An analytical, comparative, critical and selective treaties on five Constitutions American, British, Indian, Soviet and Swiss (Calcutta: World Press) Sir John Baker, 2009, Our Unwritten Constitution, Maccabaean Lecture in Jurisprudence, British Academy Tony Benn and Andrew Hood, 1993, Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain (London: Hutchinson) Tom Bingham, 2001, The Rule of Law (London: Allen Lane) Vernon Bogdanor, 1999, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Vernon Bogdanor, Stephen Hockman QC et al., 2010, Towards a Codified Constitution, Justice Vernon Bogdanor, Tarunabh Khaitan and Steven Vogenauer, 2007, Should Britain Have a Written Constitution?, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 78, Issue 4 Rodney Brazier, 2008, Constitutional Reform: Reshaping the British Political System (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Beau Breslin, 2009, From Words to Worlds: Exploring constitutional functionality (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press) Chris Bryant (ed.), 2007, Towards a new constitutional settlement (The Smith Institute) Russell Deacon and Alan Sandry, 2007, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)