Thus perhaps meaning America is less democratic because if citizens want a change they have to fight harder to achieve it.
The British uncodified constitution is flexible and can be amended easily, using the same process as for common law, ‘effectively by a simple majority in the House of Commons.’ (Coxall and Robins (1998))
Kingdom (1999) argues that written constitutions are encouraged to resist change through their process of amendment. ‘Written constitutions are usually given a propensity to resist change; entrenched through deliberately cumbersome processes of amendment.’
Since the introduction of America’s constitution in 1787 there have been twenty-six formal constitutional amendments. Amendments must be proposed, two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress may bring proposals together.
Wikipedia argue that a constitutional amendment is an extraordinary procedure that isn’t easily brought forward. Procedures may include the consent of regional legislatures, a referendum and two-third majority in the national legislature.
The American Constitution separates the power between the executive, legislative and the Supreme Court, and as well as giving each element their own powers, the constitution allows each element to have a certain amount of power over each other. If one element of power doesn’t want a constitutional amendment, they have the power of veto to reject it.
Whereas the British constitution is free to evolve and develop as Britain does.
Coxall and Robins (1998) argue that the ‘British constitution, like other constitutions to a lesser extent is a historical formation. Its provisions reflect a continually changing balance of power between classes, groups and interests.’
Perhaps meaning the UK constitution is more democratic because it changes as the country and people do.
Because the British constitution is uncodified it’s open to interpretation, and because it’s not all gathered on one document it’s harder to know what the constitution actually is, therefore it’s thought of as more of a guide. It’s easily changed and amended.
Coxall and Robins (1998) also argue that a single document would not be able to incorporate the UK’s entire political system. The US’s constitution consists of under 5000 words and is used as a structure in which the country has been built. Does having a written constitution make the United States more democratic? S.E Finer argues that very few written constitutions have ‘no relationship whatsoever to what goes on.’
Coxall and Robins believe that written constitutions are ‘imperfect guides to political reality’ which have been frequently overthrown. ‘Constant demolition of allegedly binding constitutions since 1918 appears to mock the nineteenth century belief in the capacity of written codes of riles to mould political actions.’
Thus making it appear that written constitutions are less democratic. Many argue that constitutions are only brought together after a revolution. Wikipedia argues that the relationship between the historical and political aspects of the country is the driving force for such change.
According to Coxall and Robins (1998) a dominating feature of the uncodified British constitution is the Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is the supreme constitutional authority. ‘Parliament can do everything that is not naturally impossible.’ William Blackstone.
But since becoming a member of the EU, Britain has a dual constitutional organization. EU law reigns supreme in Britain with a higher priority then UK law. The pairing with the EU was passed without offering the wide population a referendum, which is undemocratic in many eyes. If Britain had a written, codified constitution that was clearer to citizens, uniting with the EU would have been a lot more difficult.
Having a ‘parallel constitution’ makes the UK arguably less democratic; pairing with the EU brings new laws, supreme laws that will be applied by appointed judges. The judges will use EU as the law of the land.
The Dual constitution also creates confusion; if citizens don’t understand the uncodified constitution they are less likely to get involved with politics and introducing a new system of laws may just confuse and put people off further.
One difference between the two constitutions is that the United States is a federal state whereas Britain is unitary. Federal states have to have written constitutions and the US constitution separates the power. Leach, Coxall and Robins (2006) argue that the separation of powers is a ‘key feature’ of the constitution. In Britain the separation isn’t that clear.
The power is divided between the executive, the legislature and the Supreme Court; the power is also divided between federal government and state government. Checks and balances maintain the system, preventing any part of government from growing too powerful.
Riker (1965) argues that the ‘Separation of powers is not a way to make use of freedom, it is only a limit on government’
It could be argued that the separation of powers is a very democratic feature of the US constitution; by limiting the powers of the government it’s also preventing corruption.
Benjamin Franklin compared the separation as a “Snake with two heads and one body.”
Riker (1965) argues that to achieve a fully representative democracy in the US, the government needs to abolish the separation of powers. ‘Separation of powers is designed to impede majority action, justified as a protection of minorities.’
Riker believes this is the ‘central paradox of American institutions’ he believes the institutions are working with democratic methods inside a constitution designed to obstruct them. ‘Separation of power is a real protection against tyranny in the absence of democracy.’
Riker is arguing that the Separation of power is an undemocratic aspect of America that doesn’t benefit the wider public and until that aspect changes America’s use of the separation is to ensure the President doesn’t become too powerful. As well as being a democratic feature it’s also undemocratic because it fails the people it’s representing.
Constitutions have democratic and undemocratic features; In Britain the constitution is flexible and open to interpretation meaning it evolves with the people. With the recent relationship with the EU, UK law has taken a back seat, which isn’t entirely fair when the public haven’t had an opinion on it. With the aspect of becoming part of the European Union opens new questions. If Britain were to become part of the United States of Europe it would become a federal state. Britain would have to have a written constitution.
Coxall and Robins (1998) argue that a written constitution would mean the end of Parliamentary supremacy as most laws would be so basic, they couldn’t be changed by usual legislative methods. Parliament would be obligated by any constitutional amendments made before them.
In the US the Separation of powers is highly disputed as having democratic and undemocratic features; it prevents corruption but without the separation, as Riker argues America would be more representative.
Although the US constitution is written, the US Supreme Court has allowed the interpretation of the constitution to develop to keep up with the times.
So although it’s a written constitution it’s still able to evolve as years pass.
Kingdom, J (1999) Government and Politics in Britain, An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Kingdom, J (1999) Government and Politics in Britain, An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Kelly, A, Harbison, W, Belz, H (1965) The American Constitutions; its Origins and Constitution.
Leach, R, Coxall, B and Robins, L (2006) British Politics (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan)
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Kingdom, J (1999) Government and Politics in Britain, An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Madgwick and Woodhouse, 1995. Found in Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
Leach, R, Coxall, B and Robins, L (2006) British Politics (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan)
Riker,W (1965) Democracy in the United States. Macmillan, Canada pg 122 – 140
Riker,W (1965) Democracy in the United States. Macmillan, Canada pg 122 – 140
Riker,W (1965) Democracy in the United States. Macmillan, Canada pg 122 – 140
Riker,W (1965) Democracy in the United States. Macmillan, Canada pg 122 – 140
Bibliography
-
Bruce, W (1917) Benjamin Franklin Self-Revealed (New York, Putnam)
-
Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins (1998) Contemporary British Politics 3rd ed. Macmillan, London.
- Leach, R, Coxall, B and Robins, L (2006) British Politics (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan)
-
Kavanagh, D (1996) British Politics Continuities and Change. 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford
-
Kelly, A, Harbison, W, Belz, H (1965) The American Constitutions; its Origins and Constitution
-
Kingdom, J (1999) Government and Politics in Britain, An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
-
Madgwick, P and Woohouse, D (1995) The Law and Politics of the Constitution of the United Kingdom (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.)
-
Riker,W (1965) Democracy in the United States. Macmillan, Canada pg 122 – 140