Constitutional conventions are vague notions which are difficult to define. No conventions are stated officially. Convention s can be broken with no adverse result. It is hard to understand why such a state of affairs is tolerated. Critically evaluate that statement, explaining to what degree, if at all, you agree with it.

However, there are others who reason that although the sometimes ambiguous and passive nature of conventions could be said to be an undemocratic approach in outlining the roles of the state and its people and in making sure that the fundamental rights of the citizens are entrenched and protected, it has been principally accepted to be a practical source of the British Constitution with little interest to codify it over the years. As mentioned by the previous Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister Jack Straw, “it would be a grave error to put any description of the convention[s] into legislation” (HC Hansard, 10 May 2006, Vol 681, col 444) and such a viewpoint seems to be shared among other political leaders and parties such as the Conservative Party which displayed their reluctance in making changes to the constitution during the twentieth century on the ground that it would be disruptive to the political process.  Hence, from such a state of affair it is apparent that even with its many drawbacks, constitutional conventions are very much tolerated and to a large extent, it is not difficult to understand the reasons behind this phenomenon.

First of all, one of the reasons why conventions are generally politically tolerated is due to its flexibility which is a highly favourable quality as it allows the constitution to adapt quickly to changing conditions. Indeed, the British constitution has been able to adjust rather smoothly and quickly in the past to changes such as the role of the monarchy and the EU membership without major upheavals or confusion as it might otherwise happen given the example of revolutions in nineteenth-century France and Germany.4 

Secondly, no set of written rules can deal with every possible situation.5 Hence, conventions would make it much easier as compared to constitutions for Parliament to make effective changes to legislations or pass new Acts which could be an advantage in urgent situation where immediate actions are required. After the September 11 attack for example, due to the non-entrenched nature of the constitutional conventions, it allowed Britain to pass the Terrorist Act fairly easily while its American and European counterparts struggled with the problem.6

Also, as Lord Howe of Aberavon warned, codification of conventions can lead to increased complexity and reduced effectiveness. He cites the examples of the Nolan principles of public life, the concordat between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, and Commons timetabling and programming where he concluded that conventions should be allowed to continue evolving as far as may be necessary.7 Indeed, the current state of conventions has stood the test of time without any incidents of violent revolutions or political unrest and hence this may also be a good reason as to why it is still in practice and been tolerated today. Besides, the Conservatives argued that it would just be too tedious to reorganise, clarify and codified and it would not be worth the trouble especially since it is not really urgent or even necessary to alter the system at the current moment. 

In conclusion, I agree largely to the argument that even though there are many shortcomings on the subject of constitutional conventions in the sense that they are difficult to define, not stated officially and can be broken with little repercussions, they are to a large extent been tolerated as they create greater flexibility in dealing and can adapt to different circumstances easily. Of course, since conventions have been effectively evolving according to the time and culture and have been largely a useful means to govern the constitution, there need not be much need to change it at the present stage.