Should the UK have a codified constitution?

by lucyellen (student)

Lucy Barlow

I believe that the UK should stay with the current system of an uncodified constitution, unlike most other countries in the EU, because although we aren’t on a par with western politics constitutions the system which we have doesn’t need to be changed as it works well for us. I believe that it wouldn’t be an important advancement for the country to have our constitution codified as there are much more important issues which need tackling before we can even consider codifying the constitution. Although there are benefits both for and against having a codified constitution in the UK, I firmly think that the unwritten constitution is still helpful in being able to distinguish our laws. Even though some may argue against it, I think that the system has worked for this long so why do we need to change it now when we have no real problems with it?

The current uncodified constitution has been criticised for its ambiguity and uncertainty. As the constitution has not been written down it becomes difficult to know what it actually says and how each element should be interpreted. There is no clear conception of the laws set in place for governing the UK, which also extends to the constraints of the government themselves, power distribution and the rights of the individual. This means that there is weak protection for the rights of the individual as their rights and freedoms are not specified clearly. However, some argue that the flexibility of the uncodified nature of the constitution is a benefit because it is easy for us to change. The main advantage of the constitution as it stands is that it remains current as it can be interpreted in many different ways and it can also adapt and respond to changing circumstances. This makes it, in some ways, a much better system as we can adapt to the changes of a modern day society.

I feel as though the fact that the constitution can be so widely misinterpreted is a downfall as what one person may judge to be legal, another could rule it differently. A codified constitution would be much better in cases where the constitution needs to be referenced, for example when making laws it would be much simpler to know what you were basing your judgement on. However, I think that the uncodified constitution and its flexibility does benefit the changes we see today in modern politics as it can be interpreted in many ways, making it still very relevant.

One ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

One of the biggest criticisms facing the UK constitution is that of elective dictatorship. In practice, once they are elected the governments can, within reason, do more or less as they wish. Parliament has sovereign power and parliament, in turn, is controlled by the government at the time. The government can therefore mould the constitution for their own personal gain. The lack of codification and undisturbed democratic rule can be seen as a strong legal system. Others in favour of sticking with the current system say that as central power is strong, a decisive and stable government is created. Some also argue that if too many limitations are put on government power it will reduce decisiveness and some of their actions could lack clarity. The government is praised for its ability to control legislature and to carry out electoral mandate without any real delay. The current constitution is also adept at dealing with new problems without being hindered by constitutional restraints.

In the case of electoral dictatorship, I believe that it isn’t as big a problem as the misinterpretation of the system could be. I don’t feel that it would work in reality either as if a party got too much power we would just vote them out at the next election. So I agree more strongly with the argument for keeping the uncodified constitution.

Those in favour of keeping the constitution as it is also argue that the traditional elements of government, such as the House of Lords and the Monarchy, moderate the decisions made by the government and the House of Commons. The argument of history and tradition is mostly linked with those who have more conservative ideas and which this comes the belief that the constitution holds its strength as it links past and present generations together. Due to the growing role of common law and conventions the constitution has grown and developed a trait which has had it labelled as ‘organic’. The benefit of this type of ‘grown’ constitution is that it holds historical authority and as the rules have been tested over time they have been shown how to work. This concept is related most clearly to the ‘dignified’ aspects such as the monarchy and House of Lords. In contrast to these view, some find that the constitution is out dated and needs to be reformed and updated to fit the modern needs.

The developed nature of the constitution means that it holds authority and, even to some degree, legitimacy. The traditional customs show us that the system has not failed us in the past and reinforces the idea that we don’t need to update our constitution.

Other reasons which are attributed to not having a written constitution in the UK include rigidity, where higher law is more difficult to change than statute law meaning that the codified constitution would soon become outdated, and political bias, where once set of rules are seen as more important than the others. Changing the constitution is also seen by many as unnecessary as improving democracy and strengthening balances would be a better way of regulating the government, than a constitutional reform.

In conclusion, I think that the arguments against a reform to the UK constitution out way the reasons for a reform. There really is no need to change the system as the sense of ‘British fair play’ which it is based on, has worked well for us up to now so there is no real reason why we need to have a set of written rules and guidelines. There are also a lot more pressing matters which require attention, such as the economic crisis, so the codification of the constitution can wait until we had sorted out the financial troubles facing the country.