Virtues and Shortcomings of Britains un-codified Constitution - Essay Example

History and political science Virtues and shortcomings of Britain’s ‘un-codified’ Constitution A constitution is a set of rules and guidelines that are printed in a sovereign state. The difference between the British constitution and the constitution in other countries is that the British constitution is un-codified, meaning that it is not a book or writing that outlines some of the state rules. In the British political structure, the parliament is representative of the legislative and executive authority concerning the political law of the country (Williams, 1998: p 55). The parliament must be able to act promptly in passing legislation, which is a reflection of the will of the people. For this reason, the acts and laws passed in parliament become the constitution, as long as they have respect to the sovereignty of parliament as well as the principles of governance and legislation. The parliament in this case is sovereign and superior to every other institution in Britain, which means that it has the mandate of interpreting the constitution, thereby representing the sovereign will of the people. The un-codified British constitution constitutes values and political ideas that are based on ideals and precepts rather than fundamentals that are based on texts or documents (Williams, 1998: p 57). This means that the constitution and laws are symbols of the embodiment of their political culture, traditions and values of the British society. One of the strengths of the un-codified British constitution is that it is flexible. Many countries with the codified constitution find it difficult to pass legislation since the government is accountable and the constitution is protects individuals. For instance, Britain was able to pass legislation meant to detain terror suspects for a long period after several terrorist attacks. Other countries with the codified constitution during this period found it difficult to do the same since their constitutions were protecting the liberties of individuals (Watts, 2007: p 204). For this reason, these governments were not able to detain the terror suspects for a long duration, as the relevant authorities continued with their investigations. Apart from the flexibility of the un-codified constitution, its other strength is that it is able to evolve. Individuals in society live according to the changes in the political climate. This gives the British parliament the power to change some of the laws that seem to be outdated, consequently changing the way people live in the society (Watts, 2007: p 202). The ability of the evolution of the un-codified constitution creates an environment that is comfortable for individuals to reside. For instance, in 1867, sovereignty was given to parliament, after it was taken away from the monarchy, which was responsible for the creation of a democratic political environment. This change made it possible for individuals to know their place in society. On the other hand, other than the opposition in parliament, there are no provisions for checking the government. This is one of the major shortcomings of the un-codified constitution. The absence of the checks and balance mechanisms might lead to the creation of an unjust political system, where the government might be in a position to oppress individuals in the society selectively. Using the previous example on terrorism, the British government had the capability of holding suspects for long periods, and with the probability that they might be lacking enough evidence to charge them, the detainment would be an infringement on the rights of the individual. Contrary to this, the codified constitution presents an opportunity for the creation of a political system that is just (Williams, 1998: p 52). In this case, the government will not be able to oppress individuals in the society, unless they have concrete evidence that a suspect is a terrorist. Before charging the suspect, he or she will be able to continue enjoying some of the rights and freedoms in society. An Assessment of the Prime Minister’s Powers The prime minister’s powers in the political structure in Britain have recently developed to an extent that some political analysts no longer describe Britain as having a cabinet government, but a Prime Ministerial government. Included in some of the responsibilities of the prime minister is that he has the mandate of selecting his own cabinet (Williams, 1998: p 49). This enables him to reward the people who have demonstrated loyalty to his party and himself. He is capable of demoting some of the cabinet members who do not are not loyal to him, almost certainly demoting them or reshuffling them to lower levels. The expectation is that the MPs who have been selected to the cabinet position have to remain loyal to the prime minister in order to enjoy some of the rewards that come with having such a position. On the other hand, the prime minister does not have any departmental duties, which gives him more time for having control over his party (James, 1999: p 119). This means that he has control over influential committees in his party, and through this, he is able to drive some of the policies from the committees. Apart from having the control of his party, the prime minister controls the cabinet office (James, 1999: p 119). For this reason, he has the power to appoint people to the senior positions in the civil service since he is responsible of appointing the cabinet secretary, who heads the civil service. In this case, there is likelihood that the people aspiring to become senior civil servants might not taint their reputation in regards to the relationship that they have with the prime minister. Even though the prime minister has several powers that exults his position in British politics, there are a number of limits to these powers. One of the greatest limitations to the execution of his powers comes from the party that he represents. If a prime minister loses support from some of the party’s backbenchers, there is a probability that his position will be weakened. For instance, Margaret Thatcher had to resign as prime minister in 1990, following the commencement of a revolt against her leadership style (Carlisle, 2005: p 906). Geoffrey Howe, Thatcher’s former cabinet colleague, was responsible for instigating the revolt process. The other victim was John Major, who allegedly referred to some of his cabinet colleagues as bastards, since they did not agree to his support on the development of greater associations with Europe. When he called for an election in 1997, the party suffered the greatest electoral defeat, following the disarray in the party. The other factor that limits the powers of the prime minister is because it is perceived that he is publicly responsible for any major misfortune that occurs during his rule (James, 1999: p 128). For instance, Tony Blair was being accused of being very friendly with George Bush, the former president of America. He received criticism from people who were claiming that he did not whole-heartedly criticize some of the president’s designs on foreign policy. Failure during the war would mean that there would be a challenge to Blair’s leadership on his political party. On the other hand, pressure groups also pose a challenge to the prime minister’s powers. The prime minister has to respond to some of the demands from pressure groups, which means that at some point in his leadership, he might be forced to review or do away with some of his policies. Despite this possibility, the prime minister has to secure his position in his political party in order to get the backing of the cabinet members, consequently making sure that he knows the opinions of backbenchers, which would give him an advantage on how he exercises his powers. Role of the Media on British Politics The media plays a wide-ranging role in the dissemination of political ideology to the electorate. For this reason, television, radio and newspaper are a means through which a majority of the population gets political information (Kuhn, 2007: p 6). As an integral part of the political system, the media has grown accordingly with free speech, democracy, which is conservatively a liberty of the British population. Nevertheless, the general public has no means of authenticating media information, which is generally simplified, edited and biased. This re-edited information is the only access to some of the vital issues that shape how the people view the world. After introducing video coverage into the House of Commons in 1989, Margaret Thatcher stated that this would damage the reputation of the House, which is one way through which the government affects the politics in the UK. Critics fear the effect the media has on political policy, particularly on the achievement of favorable election results, which can be obtained through sycophantic media presentation. Studies show that the media has an influence on the minds of the people (Kuhn, 2007: p 6). On the other hand, it is a force that is influential to the electorate, which is a means through which the politicians use to access the constituents and achieve the much-needed votes. British politicians are able to gain fame through the obvious party alliance that newspapers portray during the campaigns. For instance, in the 1997 campaign period, a headline on The Sun stated that it was backing Blair in the election (Geddes and Tonge, 1998: p 76). This biasness evident from the newspaper is one way to influence the electorate, but it is unacceptable in the since the media should be free from political affiliations. The only acceptable views from the media, specifically the newspapers, should be in the comic strips or editorial sections but not the headline. In the UK, effective political communication relies on phrases and slogans that are easily understood, with the aim of the promotion or justification of some of the policy decisions of the government, as well as their opponents. Through this, the politicians have become skillful in manipulating the media, for their own drives. The recent result of this manipulation is the grander use of the ‘Spin Doctor’ and the continual use of the word spin in daily language (Norris, 1999: p 54). The Blair administration is known to have projected the use of popular language, which tends to be going well with the nation’s preferences. The power of using such phrases is that their simplicity makes it easy for many people to identify. The media plays a vital role of presenting such catch phrases, which is a tool that the politicians use to appeal to the electorate. One of the most important roles that the media should perform is educating the people on some of the local issues and ways of solving problems that the people might be going through. However, the media has lost this function through time, consequently concentrating on party leadership. Increasingly, the success of a politician largely depends on their ability of handling the television medium. The British media is partly responsible for the endorsement of a leader since they give credit to a leader, depending on his or her performance during television shows (Kuhn, 2007: p 10). Margaret Thatcher, for example, was not a good performer in this platform, and she had to work hard to become better so that she could get good credit from the media, consequently creating an impact to the electorate. Good communicators have historically been getting good credits from the British media, despite the fact that they might not have enough knowledge on the policies that are beneficial to the people. Bibliography Carlisle, R. P. (2005). Encyclopedia of politics: the Left and the Right 2 2. Thousand Oaks [u.a.], SAGE Publ. Geddes, A., & Tonge, J. (1998). Labours landslide: the British general election 1997. Manchester, Manchester University Press. Norris, P. (1999). On message communicating the campaign. London, SAGE. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10369693. James, S. (1999). British cabinet government. London [u.a.], Routledge. Kuhn, R. (2007). Politics and the media in Britain. Basingstoke, Palgrave. Williams, A. (1998). UK government & politics. Oxford, Heinemann. Watts, D. (2007). A glossary of UK government and politics. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Read More