2015 Zone A/B Question 1

Discuss the strength of the arguments for the UK keeping its uncodified constitution.

Before we determine the strength of the arguments for the UK keeping its uncodified
constitution, it is first necessary to define what is meant by a constitution and to outline the
various forms that it may take. A constitution is a set of principles that establishes the
distribution of power within a political system, as well as the rights of citizens and the limits
of government jurisdiction, which may present itself in two different variations: codified
(written and structured) or uncodified (unwritten and loosely structured). The United
Kingdom possesses an uncodified constitution, and is quickly becoming one of the last
democratic nations in the world with such an entity at the heart of its political system. In
contrast to a codified constitution, the “unwritten” version comes from a variety of sources, is
vague and unclear in its nature, cannot be reviewed or clarified by the judiciary, and may be
easily modified at any given time, making it somewhat flexible, meaning that it can easily
adapt to political changes. My essay will evaluate the pros and cons of Britain adopting a
codified constitution, and come to the conclusion whether the UK is ready for such dramatic
political change.

Firstly, the uncodified nature of the current British constitution is often explained by the
United Kingdom’s unique historical development – in other words, the process of history has
naturally dictated the political environment to settle on this constitutional variant, and its [the
constitution’s] unwritten nature only highlights the result of complex changes that have
occurred in the British political system. The UK constitution is also sometimes referred to as
being ‘weighed down’ by history, meaning that the system has been in place for so long
basically no one dares to change it, in fear of shattering the ‘democracy of the dead’ and
denouncing age-old principles. Conservatives argue that the uncodified model of the
constitution has served the nation well for centuries, and there is no reason to modify or fix
something that isn’t broken. Indeed, there haven’t been any violent revolutions (perhaps with
the exception of Oliver Cromwell’s rise to power) or major political unrest, however, that
does not remove the need for modernisation and progressive reform. History’s weight should
not deter politicians into thinking that the UK is somehow unique from the rest of the
democratic world and must retain the uncodified model of the constitution – quite the
opposite; it should indicate that Britain has fallen far behind the rest of the world in a
political sense. It is quite strange that Britain has basically forced, or strongly insisted that
former colonies such as Nigeria and Malaysia adopt constitutions upon gaining
independence, without actually wielding a constitution itself. Even former Soviet states,
which are generally perceived as third-world, undeveloped and undemocratic, such as
Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, have constitutions, whereas Britain, the Western world’s
democratic spearhead (a role exercised in tandem with the USA), arrogantly persists on the
apparent efficiency of its current system and refuses to join the modern political world by
adopting a single key document – a codified constitution.

As constitutional safeguards in Britain are weak or absent, and there is no clear separation of
power between the judiciary, executive and legislative branches (not entirely true – the
establishment of the Supreme Court has secured the independence of the judiciary, however,
the legislative and executive branches remain fused) due to the absence of a written
document that would outline the checks and balances they have over each other, the
government can wield more power. Of course, this can be viewed both as a positive and a
negative – a powerful government can react and mobilise its powers quickly and efficiently
in response to problems and crises of a various nature, whereas a constitutionally limited
government will be much more patient and indecisive, as in the United States, where
Congress and the President are often in conflict, not coming to any precise decisions, getting
caught in legislative gridlock, as with President Obama’s  healthcare reform, which got
bogged down in Congressional debate and Republican mistrust – Republicans in Congress
used their constitutional powers to stop a bill that would greatly benefit the American people.
In Britain, such a reform could have been passed much more easily due to the flexible
relationship between government and Parliament. However, I do not understand the trade-off
of constitutional rights for executive stability – an over-powerful executive could lead to the
abuse of power by a nation’s leaders, as with Tony Blair and the Iraq War – the murky nature
of the constitution permitted New Labour’s leader into leading Britain into an unnecessary
conflict that would only severely damage the country’s reputation on the international
political arena at the expense of thousands of British lives. A codified constitution will
simply outline the checks and balances the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
power will use when enacting change, document the powers of the Prime Minister, set out the
Royal Prerogative, finally laying the issue to rest and highlighting the role of the monarch in
the British political scheme – something the uncodified constitution has failed to do.
Parliament needs more codified powers in order to restrain the executive on behalf of the
people, and that is exactly what a written constitution will provide, only stressing the
necessity of its adoption.
As most people in Britain aren’t even aware that the UK has a constitution, the introduction
of a codified constitutional document would serve the nation well, raising public awareness
about the way the government works and the political system’s operation in general. Again, it
is rather strange that Britain is lacking behind regions such as Eastern Europe in the level of
involvement of its population in political issues, and the absence of a written constitution is
clearly one of the reasons behind such ignorance and apathy on part of British citizens.
Political participation may increase substantially as a result of the constitution’s codification,
as people will simply increase their understanding of the way in which the British political
mechanism works, and will determine from that their political position, as well as their rights,
which will cause at least a partial liberalisation of society – undoubtedly a positive element
that will arise as a result of a written constitution. An ordinary passer-by in the UK will most
probably fail to explain how the system of government works, whereas his counterpart in
Russia, Germany or France will show a good general understanding of national politics and
the organisation of the state – all due to the latter three countries wielding constitutions that
serve as political guides for the electorate, and valuable democratic indicators – abuse of
power becomes agonisingly obvious in a clearly outlined political scheme. As it is so unclear,
the British political system inevitably possesses many nuances and loopholes, which
politicians can manipulate in their favour and unjustly gain more power – a rigid written
constitution will mean that all institutions will have a clear role and position, and any form of
deviation from that position will be prosecuted.

Finally, the main argument in favour of retaining the British constitution in its current form is
its flexibility. It is said that the uncodified constitution of the UK can easily adapt to global
and national political changes without any major upheavals or conflicts, and the political
system can be therefore kept up to date, in contrast to the USA’s codified constitution, which
still contains severely outdated legislation, such as the 2 Amendment, which allows all
nd

citizens the right to bear arms – an almost medieval law, in a sense, in the modern
understanding. The suffragette movement in 1918 resulted in women getting the right to vote
as a result of Parliamentary law, and 1997 saw Scotland and Wales get their own
governments, as a result of the same procedure – both facts illustrate the ease with which the
constitution can be changed. However, the presence of a codified constitution does not rule
out the possibility of adaption to swiftly developing circumstances – it is the relevancy of the
law itself that matters. If all branches of power agree on a specific element of legislation, and
it is constitutional, then it will be implemented. Mutual agreement between the organs of the
state, most importantly legislative and executive, is the key to flexibility in this situation, not
constitutional nuances. Hypothetically, if Parliament and the government were bound by a
codified constitution, then it would still be key for a majority vote to be secured in the House
of Commons in order for a law to be passed – the main obstacle would essentially remain the
same, meaning that a codified constitution would only limit the powers of the executive, not
influencing the adaptability of legislation in any way, unless it comes into conflict with
constitutional law. If fundamental changes want to take place, then it is necessary, in my
opinion, to undergo rigorous procedures of constitutional amendment in order to solidify the
modification and ensure its effective operation in future – valuing constitutional flexibility
rather than solid law may prove to be a vulnerable point in the way the document (the
constitution) is put into practice.
All in all, it can be said that Britain, however special it may seem in the eyes of politicians
and historians, is in fact no different from all of the other democratic nations in the world –
every single country has had its own path of development, and that must be respected.
Forcing others to adopt constitutions in the name of democratic necessity, while having no
such document of your own is highly selfish and unjust – a reason in itself for Britain to
adopt a codified constitutional model. Systematic clarity, possible positive influence on
political participation, an outline of the separation of powers and limitations on the executive
– all sought-after notions in British politics, will finally be introduced with the adoption of a
codified constitution. Britain will receive a document central to its political system, and
citizens will receive a valuable asset in an official collection of their rights and a clear
description of their government’s powers. In my opinion, to selfishly refuse adopting a
written constitution in amidst a world where being transparent, explicit, fair and democratic
is now becoming the required standard for a developed country, is, in effect, political suicide,
or at least a prelude to it – a ticking time bomb, if you will, that will negatively influence the
British system in one way or another in the long run.