Should Britain Adopt a Written Constitution - Essay Example

Should Britain adopt a written constitution? Constitution of Britain Every country needs a proper constitution for governance, where a constitution is a group of laws and regulations that are needed to govern a country. For that the form of constitution varies in every country. The constitution articulates the rights of the citizens in a country. Constitutions should let the citizen identify with and completely engage with the nation and the state institutions. Constitutions could be written or unwritten. Most of the countries have written and codified constitutions. The only countries that do not have a totally written constitution are Britain, Israel and New Zealand (Characteristics of the UK constitution, n.d., p. 5). The British constitution is uncodified and not a written one. Constitutions either written or unwritten, make out and regulate the principal institutions of the country and administer the relationship between the government and the individual citizen. The main characteristics exhibited by the unwritten British constitution are monarchical, mostly unitary and a supreme Parliament. The British Constitution has a flexible characteristic unlike the rigid US constitution where amendment involves a complex procedure, necessitating employment of special processes before introducing any change in the Constitution. The fact that the British Constitution is flexible is explained by the process of the evolution and the ongoing reform programme of the constitution. Again, a Constitution can be distinguished on the basis of republic and monarchy. While, the United States has a republican form of government (where the state is led by an elected President), Britain has a monarchial rule where, the Queen is the head of the state and holds extensive and central powers under the royal prerogative. The powers are customarily implemented by the present elected government led by the Prime Minister. Britain has always been a unitary state with the Parliament as the peak law-making body for all the constituent countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although powers are decentralized to the local governments and assemblies of these nations, the law-making power is in control of the British Parliament. The British membership to the European Union has questioned the supremacy of the British constitution. This is mainly because a supreme constitution is not dominated by any outside superior force and the membership has subjected the member countries by the supreme authority of the European Court of Justice of the Community (Characteristics of the UK constitution, n.d., p. 3-4). The reason behind the unwritten character of the British Constitution is partially due to the political steadiness that shaped up since the end of the seventeenth century. Since then there has been no such important incident that has necessitated a single document to lay out the rules on subjects like the duration of parliamentary terms, the system of voting to the House of Commons and selection to the House of Lords, the authority of the judiciary, the rule of the devolved authorities, and the process by which the bills become law (Britain’s future: the citizen and the state, 2007, p. 62). Almost all the nations in the world have undergone some particular event which led to a breakaway from their historical rule and brought in a prospect to codify their constitutional provisions. However, Britain has been an exception to this process where the British constitution is an outcome of a slow and steady evolution rather than any premeditated effort to devise an absolute structure of constitution and government. Although the British Constitution is not entirely unwritten yet it has never been outlined by some basic constitutional document. Nonetheless, it is evident that the British constitution has rules and laws that regulate the prime institutions of the state. There are a number of rules that can be identified as constitutional, although there exists some uncertain dimensions of the law. As mentioned before, the foremost rule of the constitution is to bestow the supreme law-making power in the hands of the Parliament and for that reason there can be no restraint with regard to the issues on which the Parliament can legislate (Characteristics of the UK constitution, n.d., p. 5). The British constitution has mainly four prime sources which are statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. In practice, as against the legal theory, it is quite difficult for Parliament to modify or abolish such statutes without the unambiguous consent of the citizens. Again, beyond the heart of statutes which is generally considered as constitutional, there are places of doubt (Britain’s future: the citizen and the state, 2007, p. 62). Need for a Written Constitution The unwritten nature of the British Constitution is not a fact in the literal sense. It means that there is no particular document in which the constitutional rights are written. As a matter of fact, there are several documents in which the rules are set down and also there is no distinct Bill of Rights like that of the United states Constitution (Should Britain Adopt a Written Constitution, n.d.). The British constitution is partially written in statutes and rest is implemented by means of custom and convention. The judiciary system takes precisely the same responsibility as in a written structure, the only difference being that the constitution becomes more complicated to amend in a written one (Cam, n.d.). Many disagree to the idea of laying down a written constitution for Britain because they think that it would weaken the government. They argue that the British government is appropriate and well-accepted because of its capability to govern the legislature and perform electoral directives without interruption and postponement. The government is apt in tackling any unanticipated situations without encountering the interference of a lot of constitutional restraints. The current governmental system is quite flexible and adaptable to changes. With a codified constitution, it is argued that the judiciary would get highly involved in resolving the disputes arising from constitutional rights and practices (Arguments For, Arguments Against, n.d.). Britain in the usual sense has not codified its law and the courts take up a relatively stringent and literal attitude towards the interpretation of statutes. The authorization of a pact or international convention does not automatically assign it as an element of the domestic law.  The state amends domestic law where necessary so as to bring it along the lines of the convention.  Owing to Britains membership in the European Union, Community law is part of British law and takes precedence in the event of conflict between the two (United Kingdom – Constitution, n.d.). Although many argue that there is no actual need for a written constitution in Britain, a considerable lot feel its necessity. For instance, Lord Falconer believes that a written constitution should not be adopted because it would introduce the British Parliament to the type of Supreme Court that is present in the United States which would mess about with the sovereignty of parliament and change the bond between the government and the judicial system (Falconer rejects idea of written constitution, 2006). The need for a written Constitution is seen in the light of the clarity and distinction of the prerogative powers, that is, a written constitution could limit the power of the Prime Minister as well as divide the powers accordingly. The necessity can be explained under certain heads like expenses, elections, Human Rights and European Union. The current expenditure of the MPs’ and the excessive flexibility of the British Constitution have facilitated them to escape from wrongdoing and malpractices without trials. These scandals have lead to serious issues as to whether the ministers and MPs should possess a moral duty to resign from their political rank when found guilty of misconduct. The situations when a minister or MP should resign need to be laid down in the Constitution and for that reason a written constitution is a must. Having a fully written constitution would clearly mention the circumstances under which the ministers would resign and thus the citizens could be updated about the accountability of the ministers. This would result in a greater fostering of faith between the parliament and the voting public. Again, the partial codification of the constitution does not actually give the limitation on the prerogative powers and renders the Prime Minister an enormous amount of power which does not require the consent of the legislature. A written constitution can sketch out the power of the Prime Minister and separate the powers. The elections in the present parliamentary system have no fixed term and are conducted at the discretion of the government. Arguments arise on issues regarding the Prime Minister’s call of the general election at his own discretion. The rules about bestowing this kind of advantage to the prime minister are manifested in the unwritten British Constitution. Even though the prime minister needs to have the permission of the Queen (Monarchial Head) to dissolve the Parliament before any election, the act is a sheer formality except under some rare and unusual state of affairs (Barker, n.d.). This system is obvious to bring about confusion and uncertainty and it could be well avoided by a written constitution that would lay out a fixed term of elections and distinctly outline the system of conducting the elections. Again, the Human Rights Act brought in by the Labor Government has not been successful in safeguarding the rights of the citizens. These need to be preserved and protected carefully in a Bill of Rights which can only be included in a fully written constitution. In other words, it is to say that whether the public believe that they possess the correct protections of individual rights and liberties relative to the wants of the wider society, and whether there exists an accurate balance between rights and responsibilities. This gives rise to the issue of Bill of Rights, and its connection with the European Convention, and the method of selecting the way to incorporate that into the law (Ed Balls backs a written constitution, n.d.). Since, United Kingdom is a member of the European Union, any person residing in any of the European Union member nations has the freedom to move freely anywhere in the UK. However, Britain is the only member country of the European Union that does not have a codified and completely written constitution. With a fully written and codified constitution, people visiting the UK could be made more conscious of their rights and duties and also Britain would have a greater consistency with the other EU member countries and the rest of Europe since they all have a codified constitution system (Akhter, et. al, 2009, p. 2-3). The main arguments in promoting a written and codified constitution are that the Parliament is presently unrestrained and can make or withdraw laws at its discretion. There is a lot of power vested in the parliament and a codified constitution will diffuse the powers more broadly and evenly. The prerogative powers executed by the government on behalf of the monarchy are not properly defined and not controlled suitably. The rights of the public are at stake and this calls for a greater protection. The rights of workers need to be guaranteed because of the dwindling strength of the trade unions (Arguments For, Arguments Against, n.d.). Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also suggested that Britain could have a written constitution comprising of a Bill of Rights and Duties and has thought of including the citizens to focus on the issues of making an entire British Bill of Rights and Duties, or for opting a written constitution (Walker, 2007). Although shifting to written constitution would be cumbersome and time consuming, nevertheless it would help to restore the public’s trust in politics and the politicians. A written constitution would give clarity of goals and a distribution of responsibility which could be comprehended by the public. This would help the government to take difficult decisions regardless of the changing events and thus win the public’s trust (Ed Balls backs a written constitution, n.d.). A written constitution would allow the public to have an access to it and be more aware of their rights and duties. References 1. Britain’s future: the citizen and the state, 2007, “The Governance of Britain”, Available from: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7170/7170.pdf (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 2. Characteristics of the UK constitution, n.d., “Constitutional fundamentals”, Available from: http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/public_law/public_ch2.pdf (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 3. Should Britain Adopt a Written Constitution,, n.d., “Politics”, Available from: http://www.coursework.info/AS_and_A_Level/Politics/United_States/SHOULD_BRITAIN_ADOPT_A_WRITTEN_CONSTITUT_L116238.html (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 4. Cam, n.d., “Written Constitution For Britain”, Available from: http://www.southsearepublic.org/article/870/read/written_constitution_for_britain (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 5. Akhter, et. al, 2009, “The Relationship between the State and the Individual : Fostering Greater Trust”, Available from: http://www.villierspark.org.uk/web_images//pdfs/letter_to_the_speaker_jun09.pdf (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 6. Ed Balls backs a written constitution, n.d., “Society”, Available from: http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/general-news/general-news/ed-balls-backs-a-written-constitution/pdf (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 7. Falconer rejects idea of written constitution, 2006, “News”, Available from: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/conferences/labour-conference/falconer-rejects-idea-written-constitution-$453014.htm (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 8. United Kingdom – Constitution, n.d., “Countries”, Available from: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/uk00000_.html (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 9. Barker, n.d, “Should Britain Adopt Fixed Parliamentary Terms?”, Available from: http://www.helium.com/items/637900-should-britain-adopt-fixed-parliamentary-terms (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 10. Arguments For, Arguments Against, n.d., “Does the UK Need a Codified Constitution”, Available from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/280459/Does-the-UK-Need-a-Codified-Constitution (Accessed on Jan 8, 2010) 11. Walker, J, 2007, “, Reformer Brown makes bold start to premiership; Politics”, The Birmingham Post. Read More