The British Constitution And Modern Democracies - Essay Example

The British Constitution And Modern Democracies Introduction The British constitution is quite different from other constitutions in modern democracies, like Americas. The UK constitution is unwritten, meaning it lacks a single document that expresses how Britain, its people, and affairs are governed. However, as a motherland to most of the modern democracies nations’ constitutions, its un-codified form has remained the same, but with continued development. When the forefathers of the United States borrowed a lot law matters from ancient superior England, they saw the need to codify the established their constitution for purposes of coherence and strict adherence. Therefore, UK’s rules describing the powers of government, civil rights of its citizens among others exist in other statues, treaties, judicial decisions, regional conventions, and parliamentary acts among others (Republic.org, n.d.). Since the original influences of Norman conquest of England, drafting of the Magna Carta and its enactment into law, 1689 bill of rights and the successive parliamentary acts and reforms, especially in the 20th and 21st century, was the beginning and evolution of the of the English citizen’s right and the UK parliament powers in shaping its unwritten constitution. Critically, the legal and political consequences of Britain over time have led to its constitutional evolution, but not enough to enable its single documentation of laws. Over the last four decades, there have been numerous proposals for a codified UK constitution brought forth by groups and people of different political outlooks (Blick, 2011). One of the major arguments against the proposal revolves around the process, intensity, and impacts of the amendments while comparing a written and unwritten constitution. The role of the UK parliament and its power acts central to the repeals of the constitution, to keep it flexible to the later adjustments and ensure all the functions of government are in order and operational. UK Parliament Powers In the modern times, the supreme authority of the UK lies with the house of parliament. Initially, the monarch in ancient England held the authority and could use it to raise armies and taxes whenever they saw fit, or suspend the laws made in parliaments regardless of who constituted the house. The parliament had existed at the will of the monarchs, but during the reign of Charles I, there developed tension between the parliament and the king. The king had demonstrated personal rule, which was not in line with the house’s will, forcing the monarch to rule without a parliament for close to eleven years. This was followed by drastic actions taken by parliament that led into a civil war between the two parties; the parliament overthrew the king and demonstrated a commonwealth government for ten years without the house of lords and the king (Parliament.uk, n.d).Over the centuries, the parliaments’ (especially the house of common) authority has gradually developed to affect the entire British society through its constitution involvement. The declaration of the bill of rights towards the end of the 17th century enabled the parliament to take up powerful roles of the monarchs, which gave them more mandate to control and have a say to actions and matters pertaining Britain. Apart from the House of Lords, the British people can now elect their representatives who make the House of Commons, and from whom the ministers are chosen to represent the interest of the public. The declaratory act to facilitate UK’s parliament ability to legislate for their colonies is an indication of the powers accorded to the parliament back then (Totallyhistory.com, 2012).The modern parliament has the authority and capacity to discuss bills, amend, and enact them for a royal assent, after passing both Houses. Due to this, the parliament can also bar any bill and its successive enactment into law by constitutional convention. As a result, whatever the parliament passes into law is what the court enforces, and does not have the power to strike down any legislature approved by the UK parliament (Wagner, 2011). The parliament also takes time to debate and conduct pre-legislative scrutiny to the bills through its established committees. It is a superior law making body for UK that can enact and repeal laws and exercises sovereignty on behalf of the people they represent. UK’s parliamentary sovereignty is a power-sustaining mechanism, which enables the executive to secure the passage of any legislature it desires, regardless how of illiberal or draconian it is (Lawobserver.co.uk, n.d.). How changes in Parliament affect legislature In the UK, successive governments may be different in their political ideologies, since the dominant political party and membership into parliament directs the kind of government. The winning party or alliance and its majority in the House of Commons raise the Prime Minister, who is the chief head and spokesman for the UK government and representative abroad (UNDP.org, n.d.). It is correct to say that the UK government’s operations, and the bills on discussion and the laws being pushed to enactment, especially from the House of Commons, are highly driven by the majority party to fit the needs of the current society and future needs as it sees right. Parliaments at one time can pass a law, which amends a previous existing act, reject a bill, or directly pass one in the house. This is because parliament cannot pass a permanent law or entrench an act of parliament that limits the law making power of any future parliament (Weebly.com, n.d.). Perhaps the most controversial policy that can demonstrate the changes in legislatures over the successive governments and parliaments is the NHS policy, since the time of Margaret Thatcher up to the modern times of David Cameron. Why the constitution in the UK could not be introduced? It is argued that the main problem of the UK’s unwritten constitution is lack of special mechanism for its change like the United States codified one. However, its supposed merit is its flexibility and strength, and better yet, still guarantees democracy because the House of Commons (dominant constituent of the parliament) is elected (Blick, 2011). Owing to its parliamentary powers, amendments of the legislatures that make up its constitution are easy to manipulate and give priority to certain laws, which is very impossible for codified constitutions because they use a mechanism that restores power back to the people, allowing them to engage in referendums to alter their constitution and critical affairs that cannot be left in the hands of the legislative house. In the United States, the constitutional entrenchment makes it the supreme power, which is enforced by the judiciary, which has the power to override legislative enactments since it is superior to ordinary legislatures, to protect the minority from the majority and parliamentary abuses of power (Varley, n.d). With the UK’s parliamentary powers still in place, a written constitution would suffer from successive repeals affecting its enforcement and adherence from the public, unless legislative powers to pass ordinary laws are mitigated, and constitution given the supremacy (The constitution Society, n.d.). Already, the UK’s unwritten constitution portrays inconsistencies through its different statues. Retrospective legislatures especially those affecting taxations have been enacted in the UK severally and upheld by the courts judgment, even though against the European Convention of Human Rights, which the UK is a supporter (Djanogly, 2012). This creates an interesting area of conflict when codifying the constitution, because it would require clarification of whether to adopt the ECHR, or exclusively depend on the implied repeal to support the retrospective legislation. Numerous legislations enacted by the UK parliament with respect to adjusting to the society changes could end up violating the authority of other previous implied or fully expressed laws in other statutes. Taking an example of the political ideologies and their influence on succeeding policies, anyone would guess that the next parliament would probably embark on replacing or amending the current system of Human rights protection in the UK (it seems to be a problem for the nation due to its clash with ECHR) with an alternative legislation (Stephenson, 2013). Even though such trends of incompatibility in statutes could cause the parliament to entrench other laws such as a reform of UK Human Rights Act, its repeal could still be open to any future parliament, as long as sovereignty remains. Constitutions are complex and subjection to repetitive repeals in whole or its parts, especially with numerous replacements, would enhance its ambiguity. Although amendments of the law or constitution are part of the development earlier envisaged, expressed repeals and implied repeals would end up introducing a totally different structure, which may prove impractical for the public and government to readjust to. It would provide opportunities for repeals of the acts that were passed without the satisfactory support of the UK society. For example, legislatures like the Marriage Act 2013 that permitted same sex marriages could be subject to scrutiny and driving a repeal either to drop it or replace it. It would mean that because the parliament has the capacity to add, amend, and remove any act of the parliament, it would end up altering the constitution, which is a reference point for the judiciary. If the repealed law is rolled back to a different time, but provides the need of the society or parliament, or improved to fit the modern times and their necessity, the implied or expressed amendments in time would reflect the UK constitution, which would be a greater risk in pursuit of harmonizing the law. That is why the process of amending the UK constitution is more rigid not to frequently alter the underlying principles and values embedded in it. Conclusion Somehow, a written constitution leads to establishment of a rational framework of power, which in the case of UK’s un-codified nature recognizes the doctrine of its parliament’s sovereignty. Because of the uncertainty and diversity of the enacted laws and regulations in the Houses to delegate, monitor, and control power in the UK government, existence of a written constitution seems rather complicated considering the parliament’s powers to introduce a law or alter the existing ones as seen fit. Unless the parliament powers are limited through the entrenched constitution, repetitive implied or expressed repeals would continue to support the supremacy of the UK’s parliament over its constitution. Reference List Blick, A., 2011. Codyfing or not Codying the UK Constitution: A Literature Review. [online]Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Djanogly, C., 2012. Retrospective Tax Legislation: A clash of two Moral Imperatives. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Lawobserver.co.uk, n.d. Parliament. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Totallyhistory.com, 2012. Declaratory Act. 2012. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Parliament.uk, n.d. Overview of the Civil War. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Republic.org, n.d. The British Constitution. [online]Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Stephenson, S. 2013. The Constitutional Significance of Statutory Repeal: How Far Can Parliament Turn Back the Clock? [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. The Constitution Society, n.d. A Written Constitution? The Important Debates. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. UNDP.org, n.d. Governing Systems and Executive-Legislative Relations: (Presidential, Parliamentary and Hybrid Systems). [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Varley, L., n.d. Is it possible as a matter of law and desirable as a matter of political morality to entrench any fundamental rights or values in the United Kingdom’s legal system? [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Wagner, A., 2011. Does Parliamentary Sovereignty still reign supreme? [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Weebly.com, n.d. Parliamentary Supremacy. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2013]. Read More