In my last blog post, we looked at some of the benefits of the UK constitution. In this week’s blog post, we will instead be looking at some of the disadvantages of this and the problems it can create. Being able to discuss the UK constitution can be useful for essay questions, so it is well worth learning the pros and cons of it. We will start by quickly reviewing what the UK constitution is and how it works, then move on to look at some of the criticisms of it.
The UK is unusual in that it doesn’t have a written, codified constitution, unlike most countries and states which have a single document containing all of the rules and fundamental laws concerning how the state works. Constitutions organise and assign state powers and set out the rules for regulation. They usually establish the structure of the country, the branches of power and how these interact with and balance out each other.
To find out why the UK doesn’t have a codified constitution, we have to look at the history of it and how its government and legal system developed over time. Unlike states with a codified constitution, the UK has never experienced a major revolution that changed the whole system of governance and led to the creation of a whole new system from scratch. This is what would usually result in a written constitution.
Instead, the UK constitution has evolved over time out of a number of different treaties, Acts of Parliaments, judicial decisions and conventions. Together, these do form a constitution of sorts; the only difference is that it is not all codified in one document. This does make it more difficult to access, so expert advice will generally be needed for any complex issues concerning the constitution.
Undemocratic
As the UK constitution has been created gradually over a long period of time, there are elements of it that seem out-of-date and undemocratic. There are two areas where this is particularly obvious, which are the royal prerogative and the House of Lords, both of which date back a long way.
The royal prerogative refers to certain powers that the Queen, or Ministers acting on her behalf, can use without consulting the House of Commons or the House of Lords. These allow them to bypass the elected Parliament, which can be seen as undemocratic. In addition, the House of Lords itself is unelected, yet has significant law-making powers. While there have been some attempts to reform the House of Lords, a completely democratic system is still a long way off.
Lack of Clarity
Having no written constitution also means that it is sometimes unclear what the UK constitution is. This leaves it open to interpretation, so Parliament may push through Acts that are not constitutional. This can then lead to an elective dictatorship, where there are no checks on Parliament’s power and the rights and needs of citizens can be ignored as they are not clearly defined in the constitution.
Alternatively, the courts can incorrectly interpret the constitution to strike down Acts of Parliament. This results in them having too much power. They should also not have the ability to change the law too much, as a separation of powers is required and Parliament is the law-making body. However, Parliament can create new laws to prevent this if necessary, although this again creates the risk of an elective dictatorship.
The lack of clarity of the UK constitution also makes it hard for citizens to interpret what their own rights and responsibilities are. This creates uncertainty in legislation and can mean a court case is required to determine the legality of a certain action or inaction. All citizens should be able to easily understand how the constitution applies to them.
No Way to Entrench Laws
As no Parliament can bind the next one, there is no way to entrench laws – they can always be changed by the next Parliament. This is why there can never be a constitution in the UK. No matter what Parliament decides on, it could always be overruled by a later Parliament. This again creates a lack of clarity in the law and makes it difficult for people to predict the legal implications of their actions.
In addition, no entrenched laws mean that technically, no rights given by law are protected from a future Parliament. For example, human rights legislation can never be entrenched any more than any other Act of Parliament can. However, these are unlikely to be removed in practice, only added to or clarified.
Wrapping Up
I hope that this helps you to understand some of the disadvantages and limitations of the UK constitution. In my next blog post, we will start looking at the Harvard referencing system, so come back in two weeks for that!
Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.
Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed
Carmine Proofreading 