Britain's Constitution: Uncodified, Adaptable, And Ever-Evolving

The UK is one of the few major democracies that does not have a codified constitution. The country's constitution is instead an 'uncodified' constitution, comprising written and unwritten arrangements that establish the UK as a political body. The lack of a codified constitution in the UK has been a topic of debate, with some arguing that it should be adopted to bring about positive changes such as balance, further accountability, and stability, and clarity. However, others argue that a codified constitution may not be beneficial for the UK due to its history, the sources and principles of the constitution, and the practical difficulties that would arise from codification.

Explore related products

Interpreting British Governance

$66.99 $66.99

Interpreting Governance, High Politics, and Public Policy: Essays commemorating Interpreting British Governance (Routledge Studies in Governance and Public Policy)

$63.64 $66.99

Disciplining the Empire: Politics, Governance, and the Rise of the British Navy (Harvard Historical Studies)

$52 $52

The Commonwealth Nations: Birth from Crumbling British Empire and colonization (Monarchy and Governance)

$9.99

Personal Capitalism and Corporate Governance: British Manufacturing in the First Half of the Twentieth Century

$66.49 $69.99

The Overseer State: Slavery, Indenture and Governance in the British Empire, 1812–1916 (Critical Perspectives on Empire)

$135 $135

The UK's uncodified constitution allows for flexibility and adaptability

The UK's uncodified constitution also enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched. This means that the UK can adapt to changing circumstances without being constrained by a rigid set of rules laid out in a codified constitution. The UK's constitution is based on parliamentary sovereignty, which presents a difficulty if it were to be codified, as there would be a clash between the retention of parliamentary supremacy and a written constitution.

The lack of a codified constitution in the UK also means that the country did not need to formulate statements or laws that would quickly become redundant as a result of political change. This allows the UK to avoid the potential inconvenience and impossibility of codification given the current levels of polarisation.

While some argue that a codified constitution would provide clarity and transparency, the UK's uncodified constitution already recognises and affirms constitutional principles such as parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. The UK's constitution also includes written sources such as statutes, as well as constitutional statutes that shape the use of political power.

A codified constitution may threaten parliamentary sovereignty

The British constitution is one of the few in the world that is not codified into a single document or collection of documents. This is due to the absence of a critical moment in history, such as a revolution or a fight for independence, which has made it necessary for Britain to reform the constitution to the extent of codifying it. The British constitution is instead based on parliamentary sovereignty, which is commonly regarded as the cornerstone of the unwritten Constitution. This means that Parliament, as opposed to a codified constitution, is the highest source of law in the UK.

The sovereignty of Parliament is a manifestation of the sovereignty of the people in a democracy. A codified constitution necessitates a constitutional court, which threatens parliamentary sovereignty. This is supported by Blick (2011), who states that there is a "direct choice between the retention of parliamentary supremacy or a written constitution", implying that there would be an obvious clash against Britain's most important constitutional principle.

The flexibility of the British constitution is essential to ensure that the legal framework is operated in accordance with the prevailing constitutional values of the period. This allows changes to be made to the constitution according to the current political and social circumstances. For example, a constitution drafted in 1830 would have included declarations about voting rights and the powers of the House of Lords, which would have become redundant after the Great Reform Act of 1832.

Arguments for and against a codified constitution often revolve around flexibility versus rigidity and transparency versus opacity. A codified constitution may provide clarity and organisation, but it would also be difficult to define and would lose its essence of being binding on a non-legal basis. The adoption of a single written constitution is no guarantee to improve anything and may even make things worse.

Britain's history and principles make a written constitution impractical

Secondly, the British constitution is based on parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. Parliamentary sovereignty, a cornerstone of British democracy, asserts that Parliament is the highest source of law in the UK, above any written constitution. This principle would be threatened by a codified constitution, which would require a constitutional court to interpret and enforce it, potentially limiting parliamentary power.

Thirdly, the flexibility of the current system allows for changes to be made according to prevailing political and social circumstances. A written constitution could quickly become redundant in the face of political change, as it would be fixed at a particular moment in time. For example, a constitution drafted in the past may have included outdated declarations about voting rights and the powers of the House of Lords, which have since been reformed.

Additionally, the process of codifying the constitution would be complex and challenging. The UK's constitution is a collection of various statutes, conventions, and treaties, which would need to be consolidated into a single document. This could lead to a loss of flexibility and make it difficult to accommodate future changes.

Furthermore, Britain's history of monarchy has left a legacy of certain powers, such as the royal prerogative, which allows the government to act quickly in emergencies. In other democracies, these powers are typically governed by a written constitution, which places limits on their use. However, in the UK, the lack of a codified constitution means that these powers can go unchecked, potentially leading to abuse.

In conclusion, Britain's unique history and constitutional principles, particularly parliamentary sovereignty and flexibility, make a written constitution impractical. While a written constitution may offer benefits such as clarity and organisation, it could also threaten democratic principles and limit the ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

Explore related products

The Power of Commerce: Economy and Governance in the First British Empire

$61.78 $88.95

Corporate Governance

$44.99 $75.95

Colonization and the Origins of Humanitarian Governance: Protecting Aborigines across the Nineteenth-Century British Empire (Critical Perspectives on Empire)

$48 $120

British Politics: The Basics

$18.3 $28.99

Report on the Affairs of British North America: Enriched edition. Insights into Colonial Governance: Challenges and Recommendations in British North America

$1.99 $17.9

Risk Governance (Earthscan Risk in Society)

$49.59 $61.99

The UK's constitution is already clear and stable without codification

The UK's constitution is flexible, allowing changes to be made according to the current political and social circumstances. This flexibility is essential to ensure that the legal framework of the constitution is operated in accordance with the prevailing constitutional values of the period. For example, a constitution drafted in a previous century would have included declarations about voting rights and the powers of the House of Lords, which would have become redundant after subsequent reforms.

The UK's constitution also recognises constitutional principles and statutes that shape the use of political power. There are at least four main constitutional principles recognised by the courts, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. The UK's constitution has also been influenced by important historical events, such as the English Reformation, the Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which have shaped the balance of power between different branches of the state.

While some argue that a codified constitution would provide clarity and organisation, others suggest that it would be difficult to define and include legally binding obligations that could conflict with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The UK's constitution has evolved over time and continues to be shaped by political and social changes, demonstrating its stability and adaptability without formal codification.

Codification could hinder democracy and societal progress

The UK is one of only three major democracies without a codified constitution. The country's constitution is instead an "uncodified constitution", a collection of written and unwritten conventions, royal prerogatives, reserve powers, and statutes. This uncodified constitution is based on parliamentary sovereignty, which is commonly regarded as the cornerstone of the UK's democracy.

The UK's uncodified constitution enables flexibility, allowing changes to be made according to the current political and social circumstances. For example, a codified constitution drafted in 1830 would have included declarations about voting rights and the powers of the House of Lords, which would have become redundant after the Great Reform Act of 1832.

A codified constitution would threaten parliamentary sovereignty, which is a manifestation of the sovereignty of the people in the UK's democracy. It would necessitate a constitutional court, which could hinder democracy by removing representative democracy and accountability. The UK's current uncodified constitution already provides for balance, further accountability, and stability.

Furthermore, the codification process could preserve a random constitutional moment in time, rather than considering ways of strengthening the Union, such as federalism, regional autonomy, and pouvoir constituant mixte. The process of codification could also be inconvenient or impossible given the current levels of polarisation.

Frequently asked questions