It is correct to say that the United Kingdom does not have a constitution. Critically evaluate this statement.

Another possible definition of the word constitution could be, ‘Constitutions are codes of rules which aspire to regulate the allocation of functions, powers and duties amongst the various agencies and officers of the government and to define the relationships between these and the public.’  This definition describes constitution as a set of principles according to which the whole state is under control and gives the government a ruling authority over the state. However many written constitutions could operate as limiters to the states power by forming positions which a state’s rulers would be forbidden to go against such as fundamental rights.

A constitution could have many purposes. The main purposes of a constitution would be to ‘run the organisation efficiently in the light of its goals.’ This indicates it should help the councillors represent their constitutions more effectively; also enable them to take their decisions more effectively. Constitution which imitates the self-ruled morals and is known to apply in the UK aspires to keep a balance between two political aims. These aims have been formed by Harlow and Rawlings (1997) as ‘red light’ and ‘green light’ perspectives. ‘according to red light perspective, a constitution seeks to control those in power since it is widely acknowledged that people with power over others can easily abuse the powers albeit sometimes accidentally or for good motives.’ According to ‘green light perspective, a constitution should create framework of rules which enables those to run the government to cooperate efficiently in providing public services.’

Another purpose of constitution is ‘to prevent those in charge of the organization abusing their powers.’ This means that a constitution is brought in place to limit the powers of a government. Also the function of it is to look after the human rights of the citizens, freedom and independence as espoused by John Locke. Along with making sure that the decisions they make are clearly identifiable to the local people and the reasons for them are explained.

When it comes to talking about the UK’s constitution many different questions arise. One of the main question is; whether or not the UK really has a complete constitution? Well according to me the answer is no! But it will not be justice to say that we do not have a constitution at all, where as we have a partial but un- codified constitution. In relation to the definitions, one of the reasons why people may argue that the UK has a constitution would be due to the purposes of it. It is brought into action to keep the government in place and to limit their powers so they do not misuse them. As the ministers usually act within their powers this could lead people into believing we have a constitution. Another reason could be because the common law rights are usually upheld, which is another purpose of a constitution. For example the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been incorporated into law also the Devolution Acts. Other examples include the European treaties. Never the less government respects parliamentary sovereignty along with unwritten conventions is also respected.

However reasons why it is argued that we do not have a constitution would be because the rights are not well established and not made clear. Furthermore the powers of prerogatives have not been limited by the law which means they can take advantage of their powers whenever they want. In addition the monarch has still held a theoretical arbitrary power which means the ministers try to act beyond the legal powers. An example of this could be parliament trying to extend its life as legal representatives beyond 5 years. Another example could be the governments refusing to resign their positions even after losing the votes of confidence in commons. Lastly could be that the ministers are unsuccessful in accepting responsibility as an individual.

Finally I will come to a conclusion after referring to all the points above, and I believe that the UK has a partial but un- codified constitution. This means that is it not fully written and brought into action, whereas some aspects of a constitution are incorporated into the law. However it would not be wrong to state that there is no enacted document in which the constitution could be found, for example the one in Republic of Ireland and of the United States. Another reason which helped me come to this conclusion was that we do not have laws of fundamental importance which can only be changed through special legislative procedures. An example would be the Bill of Rights (1689) could have been easily amended in (1996). Overall my opinion about where or not the UK has a constitution or not is that we do not have a fully completed constitution which I have come to after looking into depth at all the resources related to the topic. 

Word count: 1168

---