An "Unwritten Constitution"

Sovereign states all more than the globe are governed by a constitution, which underpins the laws of the nation. Most countries have a written constitution such as USA, Canada and France although the UK, Israel and New Zealand distinctly possess an unwritten constitution. A written constitution is characterized by a total codification of all the constitutional laws and principles. On the other hand, the unwritten constitution tends to have a bulk of the principles not codified, extremely characteristic of the UK constitution. '[1]

The cause the English constitution requires this uncommon unwritten nature is simple. It is because of England's historical improvement. Written constitutions do not happened by accident. A country acquires a written constitution deliberately, and in direct consequence of a political event…' Far more usually than not, the unwritten nature of the UK constitution has been termed as advantageous. British constitution has a lot more political values than legal values. Citizens and the Parliament of the United Kingdom respects the rule of law and the constitutionalism and it is clearly explaining by two words of [two]Geoffrey Marshall, he argues that ''the most clear and undisputed convention of the British constitutional program is that the Parliament does not use its limitless sovereign power of legislation in an oppressive or tyrannical way. That is a vague but clearly accepted constitutional rule resting on the principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

As an unwritten constitution, the UK constitution is highly versatile and can effortlessly evolve and adapt to altering occasions. Modern day instances necessitate the altering of law in order to accommodate news trends, perceptions, and beliefs. All that is essential for the parliament to acknowledge the need to have for alterations and therefore continue to make amendments. Consequently, it is observed that conventional laws in the UK constitution do not inhibit progress but are rather topic to alter in order to align with altering conditions. For example, greater separation of powers as a outcome of the [three]Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and a reduction in manipulation of Basic Election outcomes following the Fixed Term [4]Parliaments Act 2011.

Perhaps the most important modernising alterations have been in the region of human rights, with the [five]Humans Rights Act 1998 and the [6]Freedom of Data Act 2000 This characteristic is an entrenchment and contemplating that there are democratic procedures place in place and that each the judiciary and parliament are there to safeguard the constitution, then it is the greatest suited to reflect a continuously altering world. The promotion of transparency, accountability, democracy and mandate are distinct benefits of the UK constitution. All of the matters with regards to the constitution are addressed by parliament, which is compose of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The government is subject to being dissolved and as a result has to accountable to parliament. [7]Constitutional behaviour is quidded by this unwritten constitution through conventions, which have led to acts of parliament that mandate the government to resign if it loses following a 'no confidence' vote in parliament. The most written constitutions energy is given to judges who are not elected and making them hugely superior and most likely to be swayed by subjective aspects. As a result, parliament acts, as a tool for quality handle and with constant regulations and monitoring of the government it is in a position to make certain democratic legitimacy.

In spite of the advantages of the unwritten constitution, there are limits to its supremacy. The unwritten characteristic of the constitution may possibly foster likelihood for its politicization. The truth that parliamentary supremacy is considered as the ultimate law and that judicial courts only act to regulate parliament establishes a political reality. This reality underpins the defenceless nature of judicial courts due to the lack of a codified constitution. Moreover, there are risks to flexible nature of the unwritten constitution. All laws are exposed to whimsical alterations by parliament or the government as there is no specified legal status. In addition, it makes it easy for person human rights to be eroded due to the lack of a strictly enforceable legal technique.

It has also been arguing that the unwritten constitution lacks clarity. This is contrary to a written constitution, which is detailed and explicitly addresses limitations of parliament and the government. This tends to make it simple accessible to ordinary citizens and at the identical time promotes transparency in judicial rulings. And we come to a point when we have to argue exactly where is a codified constitution is the greatest option for a constitutional reform in the United Kingdom. The case for a written constitution is that it would allow absolutely everyone to know what the guidelines and institutions had been that governed and directed ministers, civil servants and parliamentarians in performing their public duties. [eight]The sprawling mass of common law, Acts of Parliament, and European treaty obligations, surrounded by a quantity of critical but occasionally uncertain unwritten conventions, is impenetrable to most people, and requirements to be replaced by a single document of standard law dictating the working and operation of government in the United Kingdom effortlessly accessible for all. In addition, it has grow to be as well easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their personal political convenience, and entrenched procedures to make certain popular and parliamentary consent are essential that necessitate a written constitution.

The present 'unwritten constitution' is an anachronism riddled with references to our ancient past, unsuited to the social and political democracy of the 21st century and future aspirations of its men and women. It fails to give primacy to the sovereignty of the people and discourages popular participation in the political process. A written constitution would circumscribe the boundaries of the British state and its connection with Europe and the globe. It would turn out to be a symbol and expression of national identity these days and a source of national pride. The case against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and un-British. The fact that the UK technique of government has in no way been decreased to a single document is an indication of the good results of the Westminster method of parliamentary democracy and the stability it has brought to the nation. This is in contrast to most other countries whose written constitutions have been the product of revolution or independence.

The unwritten nature of the constitution is something distinctively British, it reminds us of a fantastic history, and is a source of national pride. Contrary to claims that it is out of date, it is evolutionary and flexible in nature, much more effortlessly enabling practical difficulties to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms made, than would be the case below an entrenched constitutional document. Whilst some are concerned about the supposed existence of an "elective dictatorship" and inadequate checks and balances in the political method, there is in truth a wide range of considerable pressures exerted upon ministers searching for to make controversial modifications. A written constitution would generate a lot more litigation in the courts, and politicise the judiciary, requiring them to pass judgement on the constitutionality of government legislation, when the final word on legal matters need to lie with elected politicians in Parliament, not unelected judges.

There are so a lot of sensible problems inherent in preparing and enacting a written constitution, there is small point in taking into consideration the matter. As a public policy proposal, it lacks any depth of genuine well-known help and, especially provided the enormous quantity of time such a reform would entail, it is a quite low priority even for these who support the notion. An try to introduce 1 would be a distraction and might properly have a destabilising impact on the nation.

Taking all the information and the statements in to account my point of view is that the openness of the existing constitution protect the UK from every single and every single angle and its strengthen the constitutional values and constitutionalism but it depends on the hand of the parliament to shield them and the judiciary to verify and balance whether the parliament use this openness properly.

Bibliography:

1. Lisa Webley & Harriet Samuels, Public Law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press
2. Martin Lougnlin (2013), The British Constitution: A Quite Quick Introduction, Kindle Ed
3. Geoffrey Marshall (1981), Constitutional Theory (Clarendon Law) (Clarendon Series)
4. Constitutional Reform Act 2005
5. Parliaments Act 2011
6. Humans Rights Act 1998
7. Freedom of Details Act 2000