The strengths of the UK constitution outweigh the weaknesses. Do you agree?

The UK’s long period of unbroken democratic rule is often seen as strength of the British constitutional system. In the UK’s uncodified constitution, supreme constitutional authority is vested in the elected House of Commons. Changes to the constitution therefore come about due to democratic pressure. For example, the powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 beacauseofa growing belief that an unelected second chamber should no longer have the right to block policies of the elected government. This links in with another strength of the British constitution, the fact that it creates a more effective government: the absence of a written constitution means that government decisions that are backed by Parliament cannot be overturned by the judiciary. Under a codified constitution in the US judges would be responsible for policing the constitution. Judges are unelected and socially unrepresentative which could lead to unfair verdicts. The American constitution can also be interpreted due to the preferences and values of senior judges; which is extremely undemocratic. In Britain the people vote for their MPs who debate in the House of Commons who are responsible for passing legislation, so the people have more influence over the constitution, all be it indirectly.

The final strength of the British constitution is that is based on a long history of tradition: based on precedent and convention, the British constitution has grown and developed over generations, i.e. it has been tested by time and has been shown to work. Many refer to the constitution as being ‘organic’; it matures sand progresses with time like a living thing. An example of this is the Habeas Corpus Act of 1888, which requires a person to be under arrest before they are brought before a court. This act was implemented over 100 years ago and still has precedence today.

Habeas Corpus is an act which prevents the rights of prisoners being infringed on by the judicial system; this is an example of one of the major weaknesses of the British constitution: the weak protection of human rights. As the British constitution does not have a ‘Bill of Rights’ like the American version, there is limited protection of individual rights and liberties; there is nothing that forces the governments to respect a person’s rights and freedoms, such as elections. There has been much debate recently over whether Britain should establish its own Bill of Rights, as it currently is reluctant to write down its rights and relies on ‘residual rights’. In America citizens can readily access to and are able to learn their rights should the need arise, however British citizen do not have this same accessibility as the constitution is not available as one single, authoritative document. This means that successive governments or judiciaries can amend or introduce new legislation that may affect fundamental rights, such as Tony Blair’s government, following the events of the 9/11 attacks, passed legislation meaning that suspected terrorists could be detained for certain length of time without trial, which could infringe on the Human Rights Act 1998.

Another weakness of the British constitution is that its uncertainty means that it is open to interpretation. In unwritten elements especially different clarifications of meanings can lead to confusion and opposing ideas. For example, works of authority such as The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot are open to interpretation and meanings can differ on a person to person basis. An example of this is the convention which states that ministers are required to be responsible by mistakes made by their departments; however there is open debate as to what constitutes a ‘mistake’ or ‘blunder’, to what extent they should be responsible and if they should resign when civil servants make mistakes or only when mistakes are made by the minister. This incoherency is occasionally an advantage as it brings the issue to the surface of debates and allows for more discussion, however does slow proceedings down and causes opposition.

The final weaknesses of the British constitution are ‘elective dictatorships’. This occurs mostly when the first-past-the-post voting system ensures that the House of Commons is usually dominated by a single majority party over which the government at the time has control, so can use parliamentary sovereignty as it wants. In 1997 Labour won a 179 seat majority under Tony Blair, who could almost always pass any legislation he wished and only lost few votes in the House of Commons because he always had the backing of the majority. This is a concern because elective dictatorships concentrate power in the hands of the executive and allows the government to control the shaping of the constitution as it wants. This not only creates the impression that there are no constitutional guidelines to follow but is extremely undemocratic.

Overall, I agree with the statement that the strengths of the British constitution outweigh the weaknesses – the flexibility and adaptability allows for it to be changed according to social and political outcomes and in positive circumstances I think that this is the best possible feature of the constitution, which keeps it current and up to date, a major plus.