Are conventions more than mere habits and do they serve a useful purpose?

Authors Avatar
Constitutional and Administrative Law LW503

Ms S Greenland Group 18

Assessment One, Question 2

850 Words

Are conventions more than mere habits and do they serve a useful purpose?

Give relevant examples.

In order to assess whether conventions are merely habits I must first state what a habit and a convention is and what characteristics constitutional conventions share with habits. This is to show whether conventions are mere habits in the way that they are considered and acted on. In order to assess the extent of this and decide whether conventions are actually more useful it must be considered what purpose conventions actually serve and what would happen if we did not have conventions. I will also verify consequences that may occur from not following conventions to show that they hold a higher importance than a mere habit.

Conventions are formal understandings of modes of practice within Government. They shape the way in which government functions, with rules that are understood and not enforced and details particular functions more specifically.

Habits are settled tendencies which are repeated but with no conviction, there is no enforcement and they can be disregarded, for example if another action becomes more appropriate. The distinction of understanding as explained by Dicey is, 'the meeting of minds', whereby there is a presence of a mutual recognition within a convention and only a personal preference with a habit.

Dicey chose to define conventions by stating that they 'regulate conduct of the several members of the sovereign power.'1 This explains the basic purpose of conventions but does not go any further in outlining their specific duties. This may be because many people have their own interpretations of what a convention is and this may highlight to some extent that they are followed as personal habits are. Wade goes further in his definition and states that 'conventions as a source of actions are not usually derived from an express agreement. It is more likely they take their origin from custom or from practice rising out of sheer expediency.' This helps to highlight that conventions do serve a useful purpose and have evolved from actions once carried out and as people have realised there usefulness have come to continue in their practice as an aid in their business, in this case the workings of government.. This shows a similarity in the fact that both habits and conventions do not come about through a communicated agreement but occur over time and through practice. This is due to the UK not having a written constitution setting out the rules of regulation and conduct within the constitution itself. Wade also highlights that conventions serve a useful purpose, for which they were intended, in ways which a mere habit may not.
Join now!


A further characteristic that both habits and conventions share is that neither last forever. Conventions are like habits in the sense that, they come into being at an undefined point in time. They are followed and will stay in existence through majority conviction only. This means that there must be a majority putting the convention into practice in order for it to exist otherwise it may fade out and become less important. Conventions will fade in and out with society's changes and some will be existent throughout, depending on their importance within the running of government and whether ...

This is a preview of the whole essay