Codifying The Uk Constitution: A Level-Headed Debate

The UK is one of the few countries with an uncodified constitution, spread across various documents, statutes, conventions, and judicial decisions. While some argue that a codified constitution would strengthen citizenship, improve clarity, and protect human rights, others believe that the UK's uncodified constitution allows for a strong and flexible government, and that a codified constitution could politicise the judiciary. The UK's constitution has been modified over the years, allowing for a pragmatic approach to changing circumstances. This flexibility is seen as a benefit by some, while others argue that it leaves the political system open to abuse and is confusing for citizens.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Context: Women and Rights Discourse in Nineteenth-Century America (The Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought)

$11.99 $17.99

The Making of a German Constitution: A Slow Revolution

$131.89 $160

The English Constitution: Refoundation, restoration, and reform

$35.1 $36.95

The Constitution of the Criminal Law (Criminalization)

$83.99 $170

Constitution of the State of Iowa: Codified of the Original Document with all Amendments

$9.99 $9.99

Arguments for a codified constitution

The UK is often said to have an 'unwritten' constitution, but this is not strictly true. While the UK does have a constitution, it is spread across various places, including specific Acts of Parliament, understandings of how the system should operate (constitutional conventions), and judicial decisions. This dispersal can make the UK constitution confusing and ambiguous, which in turn makes it harder for citizens to understand and know when the government is abusing its position.

Proponents of a codified constitution argue that clearly stating how the political system operates in one place would enable the government to better serve the public and the public to better engage with the government. A codified constitution would improve understanding and public awareness of the constitution in the UK. It would strengthen citizenship, giving people a clear idea of not only their rights but also the purpose and workings of the political system. It would also bring the UK into line with other modern democracies.

A codified constitution would provide stronger protection of human rights and ensure that checks and balances are in place to limit the power of the executive. While the 1998 Human Rights Act has codified human rights to an extent, it remains weak as parliament can override the act. A codified constitution would make the government more subject to the law, as rights would be 'higher' than other laws, making the government more responsible and accountable.

Finally, a codified constitution would ensure that written checks and balances are in place to limit the power of the executive. In the UK system, there are few checks on the power of a government with a majority in the House of Commons, which could alter the rules for its own advantage. A powerful government could, in theory, abolish the devolved legislatures and repeal the Human Rights Act.

Arguments for an uncodified constitution

The UK is one of only three countries globally with an uncodified constitution, alongside New Zealand and Israel. There are several arguments in favour of retaining this system:

Flexibility

The UK's uncodified constitution is praised for its flexibility, allowing the country to respond to crises and changing circumstances without being limited by higher constitutional laws. It can be modified frequently, enabling a pragmatic approach where different policies can be trialled and developed over time. This adaptability is particularly advantageous when compared to countries with codified constitutions, which may struggle to update their political systems in line with evolving attitudes and realities. For example, the constitutional right to own weapons in the US has made it challenging for Congress to address the rising number of mass shootings.

Democratic Influence

Supporters of the uncodified constitution argue that it is more democratic because it is not bound by the decisions of past generations. Each new generation can influence the constitution through their elected representatives. If a party with a constitutional reform agenda is voted into power, they can implement those changes without being constrained by a written document.

Avoid Politicising the Judiciary

Some argue that a codified constitution could politicise the judiciary, as disputes over the meaning of the constitution would likely end up in the Supreme Court, involving the court in political issues despite not being an elected body.

Historical Context

The UK has never experienced a significant historical turning point, such as a revolution or a collapse of the previous system of government, that would typically prompt the creation of a codified constitution. The country's one revolution in the 17th century did produce a codified constitution, Cromwell's Instrument of Government, but this was short-lived.

Lack of Necessity

The UK's uncodified constitution has served the country well for many years without major problems, and changing to a written constitution would be a challenging and unnecessary process.

Drawbacks of a codified constitution

The UK is one of the few countries without a codified constitution. A codified constitution is a system of government where the fundamental principles and rules of the state are set out in a single written document or code. While some argue that a codified constitution would bring clarity and limit government power, there are several drawbacks to consider.

Firstly, a major disadvantage of a codified constitution is its rigidity and the difficulty of amending it. Unlike an uncodified constitution, which can be adapted more easily to changing circumstances and societal values, a codified constitution is notoriously challenging to change. For example, the US Constitution has only had 27 amendments since 1787, with ten of these made in its early years to include the Bill of Rights. This inflexibility can make it challenging for a country to update its political system and address contemporary issues.

Secondly, a codified constitution can be interpreted narrowly, which may limit the scope of government action. In contrast, an uncodified constitution can be interpreted more broadly, allowing for greater government flexibility and adaptability. This broader interpretation enables governments to respond to evolving circumstances and make decisions that are in the best interests of the country without being constrained by strict interpretations of a written document.

Thirdly, the process of writing a new constitution can be challenging, especially for countries with deep-seated traditions and ideological differences. It can be a time-consuming and divisive process, often requiring significant political compromise. Additionally, there may be concerns about the legitimacy of any new constitutional framework, particularly in countries with a strong tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, such as the UK.

Furthermore, some argue that the goal of limited government and the protection of citizens' rights can be achieved through other reforms, such as strengthening checks and balances, local government devolution, and electoral reform. These reforms can be implemented within the existing uncodified constitution, preserving its flexibility and adaptability while addressing concerns about government power and citizens' rights.

Lastly, an uncodified constitution, such as the UK's, allows for successive generations to influence and modify the constitution through their elected representatives. This democratic aspect enables the constitution to evolve and reflect the changing values and expectations of citizens over time.

Explore related products

Republication of the Original and Codified Versions of the Iowa Constitution in the 2019 Iowa Code

$8.99

History of the National Association of Dental Faculties: United States; With Constitution and Codified by-Laws; 1893 (Classic Reprint)

$29.57

Constitutional Values, Identities and Rights: Realisation and Protection in Codified and Uncodified Constitutions (Routledge Studies in Law, Rights and Justice)

$56.99

Constitution and Laws of the Muskogee Nation: As Compiled and Codified, Under Act of October 15, 1892 (Classic Reprint)

$32.97

History of the National Associatin of Dental Faculties (United States) with Constitution and Codified By-Laws 1893 Leather Bound

$22.95

The UK Constitution (Explaining Government and Politics Book 3)

$5.42

Drawbacks of an uncodified constitution

The UK's uncodified constitution has been praised for its flexibility, allowing for a pragmatic approach to governance. This flexibility enables the country to adapt to changing circumstances and the evolution of political realities. However, the lack of a codified constitution also has several drawbacks:

Lack of Clarity and Difficulty in Understanding

One of the main drawbacks of an uncodified constitution is its lack of clarity. The UK's constitution is spread across various documents, including specific Acts of Parliament, constitutional conventions, and judicial decisions. This dispersal can make it challenging for citizens to fully understand how the political system operates, what their rights are, and how they can engage with the government. The lack of a single, clear document outlining the constitution can lead to confusion and ambiguity, making it harder for citizens to hold the government accountable.

Limited Checks and Balances

Without a codified constitution, there are fewer checks and balances on the power of the government. In the UK system, a government with a majority in the House of Commons has significant authority and limited constraints. In theory, such a powerful government could alter rules, abolish devolved legislatures, or repeal human rights laws. A written constitution would provide explicit checks and balances to limit executive power and protect citizens' rights.

Potential Politicisation of the Judiciary

Moving towards a codified constitution could potentially politicise the judiciary. Written constitutions can lead to disputes over interpretation, as seen in the United States, where the Supreme Court frequently deals with constitutional disputes. This could result in the court becoming involved in political issues, despite not being an elected body.

Difficulty in Implementing Change

Changing to a written and codified constitution would be a complex and challenging process. The UK's constitution has evolved over time, and codifying it would require significant effort to consolidate various documents and conventions. While a codified constitution could provide benefits, such as improved clarity and protection of rights, the process of achieving it would be demanding and may not be a priority for policymakers.

While there are arguments for retaining an uncodified constitution, the drawbacks outlined above highlight the potential advantages of moving towards a codified constitution to enhance transparency, accountability, and the protection of citizens' rights in the UK.

Historical context

The UK is often said to have an 'unwritten' constitution, but this is not entirely accurate. While the UK does have a constitution, it is not codified into a single document. Instead, it is spread across various sources, including specific Acts of Parliament, constitutional conventions, and judicial decisions. This lack of a single constitutional document sets the UK apart from most other countries, with only a few others, such as New Zealand and Israel, sharing this feature.

Historically, the UK's constitution has evolved over time, adapting to changing circumstances. This flexibility is often cited as a strength, allowing for a pragmatic approach where different ideas can be trialled and improved. The UK's uncodified constitution has enabled significant changes, such as the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, the introduction of the Human Rights Act, devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and the creation of the Supreme Court.

The UK's uncodified constitution has its roots in the country's history and political stability. Codified constitutions typically emerge from major historical turning points, such as independence, revolution, or the collapse of a previous government. The UK, with its stable political system, has not experienced these types of transformative events, and thus has not felt the same urgency to codify its constitution. The one exception was the brief period of the 17th century when Cromwell's Instrument of Government provided a codified constitution.

The UK's uncodified constitution has been praised for its adaptability and democratic nature. Supporters argue that it allows each generation to influence the constitution through their elected representatives. This flexibility enables the UK to update its political system in line with changing attitudes and realities, something that countries with rigid codified constitutions may struggle to achieve.

However, critics of the uncodified constitution argue that it lacks clarity and leaves the political system open to abuse. They contend that a written constitution would provide checks and balances on government power, protect human rights, and improve public understanding and engagement with the political system. The ambiguity of the uncodified constitution can make it challenging for citizens to fully grasp, potentially hindering their ability to recognise any abuse of power by those in government.

Frequently asked questions