A Written Constitution: We The People
Jack Straw is hinting that the government wants to draw up a written Constitution for the UK, with a process that could take up to 20 years. But why does Straw want to do this? Because
most people might struggle go put their finger on what [their] rights are or in which texts they are located. The next stage in the UK’s constitutional development is to look at whether we need better to articulate those rights which are scattered across a whole host of different places and indeed the responsibilities that go with being British… [And to] bring us in line with most progressive democracies around the world.
But why on earth does this mean that we should have a written Constitution?!
What Is A Constitution?
A constitution is basically the rules by which the democratic system of the nation state is run. Th is can either by an “unwritten”, though in reality this more means “uncodified”, constitution which relies on accepted conventions in order to run or a formalised, written Constitution.
Britain has an uncodified constitution, not an unwritten one. Pretty much every bit of it exists written down, in documents such as the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, and the Parliament Acts. The British constitution also exists in every single piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament, since there is no division between primary and secondary legislation. It also exists in common law, treaties with foreign powers, and analaysis and commentary made by experts [such as Bagehot]. But it also exists in conventions, which guide the way in which the system works - one convention being the role of Prime Minister.
America is the prime example of the written Constitution. It has a piece of paper which lists the rights and responsibilities of Americans, and is very hard indeed to modify. These kind of Constitutions are typically created after war or revolution, in order to satisfy the populace that their rights are defended.
Positives and Negatives
Both types of constitution have their advantages and disadvantages. An uncodified constitution allows for a great amount of organic change over time, to easily take into account the changing times and needs of the democratic system. It allows itself to be shaped by the needs of we the people, adapting as required by circumstance, even without any specific aim to do so. However, it is a hotch-potch system of rights and responsibilities, making it utterly opaque to any but the most specialised experts.
In contrast, a written constitution is the opposite - nigh on impossible to change, often requiring a super-majority, which potentially give control to a minority - which isn’t democratic. It presents a relatively simple and easily understood picture of the rights and responsibilities of citizens, at least comparatively. However, the very lack of flexibility inherent in a written constitution means that it does and cannot adapt, and no constitution is ever going to be perfect, and language meanings change over time, and can mean several things at the same time, which can give connotations that were unintended.
Changing The Type Of Constitution
The hardest element comes with changing the type of constitution that a nation state has. Uncodified constitutions exist in old democracies, which have not been through crises. Britain is one of the few who hasn’t. We had our revolution in 1688, when Parliament replaced a monarch they didn’t like with one they did, and pre-empted uprisings in France and America which resulted in written constitutions in both countries.
Whilst written constitutions in both those countries and others have been subject to amendments, revisions, and complete abolition [and with simply being ignored], the British constitution has simply carried on existing and organically modifying itself to fit the situations as they developed.
Conclusion
Getting involved deeply with the British constitution is a complicated and dangerous business. It is remarkable convoluted and rests significantly on conventions that have never been enshrined in law - one of these being the position of Prime Minister. The benefit of an uncodified constitution over a written Constitution is its flexibility. Times change. An unwritten constitution adapts with it, discarding out of date or unworkable bits in favour of new procedures, formations etc. A written Constitution, on the other hand, is fixed, solid, pretty much written in stone. Changing a Constitution is like pulling teeth.
We may be one of the few countries without a written Constitution - and that is a good thing. Our democracy is the oldest and longest lasting in the world, and we should cherish that fact. Any attempt to fully codify the British constitution could only be made by people who don’t understand its nature. Written Constitutions are almost always created when a country is either established [eg. America, Eastern Europe] or after a revolution [eg. France, Russia]. There is nothing wrong with our uncodified constitution, certainly nothing serious enough to make its codification necessary. The problem is not in the constitution, but the politicians. So any attempt to make or “organise” it into one document must be resisted.
Categories: Politics, We The People
I agree. What we have works - somewhat chaotically at times but that is the nature of democracy.
Good stuff Thunder Dragon.
I can not believe that anyone who is a serious politician and understands politics as well as Jack Straw is even suggesting this. Not only does the mantra “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” speak volumes with our unwritten constitution, but the alternative of having a written one is complicated to the point of impossible to get right and also has very dangerous and worrying implications.
This must be opposed. I still doubt (maybe because I can not believe the issue is getting serious airtime from a Secretary of State) that this will ever come to anything.
A written constitution is worse than anything an EU Treaty could ever threaten us with.
That’s right.
We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution with limitations on the near absolute powers of Parliament, the election of the Head of State by plebiscite, with Amendments to the constitution guaranteeing that the legislature cannot abridge freedom of speech, a free press, formal separation of Church and State and the right to one’s own conscience and religious beliefs, a fair trial in a reasonable time, the right to face one’s accusers, the right to silence, the right to non-self-incrimination, the right not to be tortured or abused, the right to have the final say by direct plebiscite if the constitutional changes or is affected, like say by an EU constitution disguised as a Treaty or a government bill abridging the right to peacefully assemble before Parliament to call for the redress of wrongs or removing the right to not be prosecuted over and over for the same offense until the Crown in its infinite wisdom gets the result it wants.
We don’t need no stinkin’ government by the consent of the governed. We don’t need the State, the Head of State and all parts of the State to operate under the Law. We need them above the Law as they are now, because they are so wise and benevolent. We don’t need civil rights codified into a proper and coherent Bill of Rights that the Parliament and the State, the Head of State and the Judiciary are bound to support and uphold.
We prefer to have our rights piecemeal and occasional - its more exciting that way! We prefer government to rule with the near absolute power of the Crown, because there’s no other way.
All of these freedoms guaranteed by legally binding Constitutions, limiting powers to legislature, guaranteeing freedoms are simply a trick by weak pathetic little countries like the United States, France, Germany and others who cannot stand to have the strength and fortitude to have their rights and freedoms decided by an all-powerful state.
We hold these things to be true, that some men are created unequal, and by dint of their birth, their heredity, their religious beliefs and their dedication to public service to operate above the law and behind an immense veil of secrecy never needing to be broken by the peasants they so dutifully serve on behalf of Her Majesty.
We don’t need those civil rights and freedoms, for as history is our witness, we have had peace and safety for a thousand years and, as our historical records clearly show, we have spread that peace and safety through the absolute power of an unelected sectarian state to the world, and as anyone can see, those colonies were also havens of peace and safety whose happy peoples reluctantly decided to manage their affairs by themselves after much soul-searching to form Republics instead of our glorious Absolute State.
We certainly don’t need to have separation of Church and State, because as our glorious history clearly shows, peace between religious communities only truly happens when one religion is supported over all others, as the tranquil people of Northern Ireland will testify.
I mean, those mean spirited signers of the Declaration of Independence, those short-sighted Framers of the US Constitution, those evil people like Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Paine and Lincoln - whatever were they thinking of?
Ours is far superior to their miserable condition, which is why we should never ever have a written consitution as they have. It would be the Absolute End of everything. The skies will darken. The crops will fail, and all foetuses in the womb will spontaneously abort rather than live in such a miserable place as it already has in the United States.
Frequently our embassies are assailed by people desperate to have their inalienable rights removed and to become free peasants as we are, which is why huge numbers of Americans are leaving their unhappy lot and taking themselves upon flimsy rafts to cross the Atlantic to try and see and taste our wonderful peasanthood under our Absolute Parliamentary State and unelected Monarchy, blessed as it is by heirs of unnatural intelligence and wisdom that can only come from such a system.
For we are truly the bastions of freedom in a sad a cruel world of hoaxes and slavery that we Britons have never known, which is why our system of government should not change, as indeed it cannot because our wise and glorious rulers take the instruments of that change as far away as possible away from our unworthy clutches even by democratic and peaceful means.
Quite so. That’s why constitutional republics like the United States have never changed ever since they were founded. Its like pulling teeth, that whole democratic voting thing. Its better people be told what to believe by political parties than actually involve oneself in that icky, disgusting participatory democracy of constitutional republics.
For those and other much more marvellous reasons the current UK Foreign Secretary echoed Margaret Thatcher who echoed Clement Atlee in declaring that “Referendums are the refuge of dictators and demagogues”. And quite right. That’s why its the foreigners’ fault for changing the EU constitution into a Treaty so we can’t vote against it rather that because our wonderful State wishes to keep us safely away from the ballot box.
And flexibility is very important when considering things like like civil liberties. One day, the State may consider “freedom of speech” a Very Good Thing and on another, a Very Bad Thing.
That’s why we should never have our civil liberties codified in a document that the State must honour, because we will never know whether its a Good Thing or a Bad Thing for the State and that would never do.
Much better to have civil liberties in a nice shiny glass cabinet which keeps us peasants from being able to exercise them at inappropriate moments for the State. And most of the time, it is inappropriate and embarassing which is why, when we’re not allowed to exercise our civil liberties, its always because its “not in the Public Interest”