|
|
‘Britain should have a written constitution’ Do you agree? A major issue in the United Kingdom legal system is the lack of a written constitution. Many people believe that a written constitution would provide greater accountability and democracy. However, other people believe that the traditional unwritten British constitution would provide greater protection. The fact that we have pressure groups and associations such as Charter88, who are campaigning for a written constitution, show that this concept is very controversial. A constitution sets out the system of government and performs three functions. First, the constitution allocates governmental activities, defines what the scope of government power is and what political structures will perform these various actions. For example, the US constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes but forbids it to establish an official state church. Secondly, the constitution establishes the formal power relationships among the political structures. For example, a British Prime Minister can appoint or dismiss other cabinet ministers. Thirdly, the constitution limits the power of the rulers and guarantees the rights of the ruled. For example, British citizens have a longstanding right under the common law to a jury trial. Constitutions also provide details of election procedures (in the UK the Quinquennial Act requires a general election to be held at least every five years), the composition of elected assemblies, the powers of the Executive and rights of the citizens. Constitutions are also important sources of a society’s culture, value system and historical heritage. A written (or codified) constitution is where there is a single document that gathers together the major rules about the system of government. Written constitutions are usually the product of independence struggles (the USA, Nigeria); revolutions (China, Russia) or the impact of wars (Italy, Germany). All modern states except the UK, New Zealand and Israel have a written constitution. The UK does not have a Written constitution because historically Britain has not had a sufficiently traumatic event to provoke a new start (like a revolution or defeat in a major war), geographical isolation and security from invasion has been important and those in power have been adaptable and have made reforms when faced with pressure. Britain does have a constitution in the general sense of a ‘collection or rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.’ Our constitution is made up of several distinct sources- statuates, EU law, conventions, the customs of parliament and books of authority, the common law and judicial interpretation of statuates. For the Austrian Liberal Friedrich Hayek (1960) written constitutions were nothing but a device for limiting the power of government so many people are in favour with keeping the traditional unwritten British constitution, as they believe it makes government stronger. British government is strong in the sense that there are few constitutional restraints on al elected government with a majority in the House of Commons. American government, on the other hand, is full of ‘checks and balances’ and many European governments are weakened because they are made up of coalitions of several political parties. Macnaught says, ‘The vital quality of British government, much admired in the USA and on the European continent, is its ability to control legislature, to carry out its electoral mandate without undue delay or opposition and to deal with unforeseen circumstances without encountering the hindrance of too many constitutional restraints.’ British governments have a great deal of power because of a combination of factors including a centralised political system, the dominance of the House of Commons over the House of Lords and the Monarchy, an electoral system which encourages one party governments so they control the Commons and the absence of documents like Bill of Rights or a written constitution which establish barriers to what any government can do.
|
