Constitution of Uk Essay Example for Free

Constitution of Uk Essay As Pryor mentioned, a Constitution â€Å"is a written document setting out a system of founding principles according to which a nation is constituted and governed, and, most particularly, by which is sovereign power is located† (Pryor, 2008, pp. 4). Therefore, constitutions limit the governments’ powers, protect people’s rights, and infer the legitimacy of the state. The constitution of Great Britain hasn’t been brought together into a single document like other commonwealth countries such as France – it is not written or codified. Britain’s constitution is made up of common laws, Parliament acts, and customs and traditions. But Britain does have some important constitutional documents from the Act of Parliament such as the Magna Carta (1215): â€Å"which aimed to protect citizens against arbitrary power and guaranteed the right to a fair trial and trial by jury† (Barnett Diamantides, 2007, p.33), and Bill of Rights (1689): â€Å"the Lords and Commons, previous to the coronation of King William and Queen Mary had framed a bill which contained a declaration of the rights which they claimed in behalf of the people, and was in consequence called the Bill of Rights† (Jean Louis de Lolme, 1853, pp. 50). Britain has no written constitution because â€Å"the country has been stable for too long. The governing elites of many European nations, such as France and Germany, have been forced to draw up constitutions in response to popular revolt or war† (Morris, 2008). In addition, since the current situation has been working well for a long time, why to change it? Besides, the constitution can be changed or adjusted by acts of Parliament, or by an agreement. Since it is flexible, effective amendments in laws can be easily made. A.V. Dicey explained that a flexible constitution is â€Å"one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body† (Dicey, 1885, pp.65). It is also very valid for Great Britain not to have a written constitution so not to limit the power of the executive branch – the main executive branch being the parliament. Without the laws of the country written in a formal document where people can check them, it is very difficult to know the limits of the government. Hence, an unwritten constitution preserves the parliament’s sovereignty. Moreover, without a written constitution, the parliament is able to inspect the ministers in favor of the public. Albert Venn Dicey, who was a law professor in London School of Economics and a constitutional scientist, said that it is actually advantageous for Britain not to have a written constitution. He mentions that the people’s rights and democracy have been long respected in the constitutional arrangements of Great Britain. He called it (the respect of people) as the ‘The Rule of Law’ which is â€Å"the security given under the English constitution to the rights of individuals looked at from various points of view† (Dicey, 1885, pp. 107). Dicey summarized this rule in three main points. According to Dicey in his book ‘The Law of the Constitution’, no man will be punished except if the law allows it. Secondly, every man, regardless of his status, is subject to the law (no person is above the law). Thirdly, people’s liberty and rights are respected, and consequently, there is no need for the Bill of Rights (Dicey, 1885, pp. 110-115). A country might have a constitution, but may not enjoy constitutionalism. According to Kuper and Kuper â€Å"Constitutionalism is a political condition in which the constitution functions as an effective and significant limit on government† (The Social Science Encyclopedia, 1996, pp. 134). For constitutionalism to occur the constitution must constrain the government; hence, any government that is constitutional can be referred to as â€Å"limited government† (The Social Science Encyclopedia, 1996, pp. 134). In many regions, such as the European Union, constitutionalism is maintained by the Court of Justice, or judicial reviews. According to Kuper and Kuper, these practices aren’t required in the British system because â€Å"the most important constitutional precepts are maintained and enforced more informally through well-established popular attitudes and the restraint of politicians† (The Social Science Encyclopedia, 1996, pp. 134). Furthermore, there are countries with a written constitution such as Middle-eastern countries, but don’t practice constitutionalism. It is the executive body that rules and sets the laws, and in addition, there is no limit to its power. Furthermore, an opposition party or a judiciary, those who make sure that constitutionalism is practiced, and maintain constitutional limits are actually â€Å"not independent of government, because they are controlled by social or economic interests aligned with the government† (The Social Science Encyclopedia, 1996, pp. 134). Hence, even if there is a written constitution that can limit the government’s power, those who enforce constitutional laws may be in line with the government. A constitution might be nothing but a symbol or tool in order for governments to acquire both internal and external legitimacy, and for the public to respect the political and social rules. In the case of Britain, the people chose the anniversary of Magna Carta as the new national day, which shows that the people believe that the power of their ruler is bound. Magna Carta â€Å"didnt work in practice but it set a precedent. It advanced the cause of liberty, constitutionalism and parliamen tarianism†¦..† (The Telegraph, 2006). Reading in the news, the idea of forming a written constitution in Great Britain is being addressed by the current Prime Minister Gordon Brown in order to increase the democracy in Britain. But what must and must not be included in the constitutions? So, since this system has been working in Britain for centuries, and there is a body (the Parliament) that has some power over the prime minister, the system must not be tampered with. The well functionality of the system, the stability of the country, and the great flexibility in making and terminating laws are some of the reasons why Great Britain has an unwritten constitution. To sum everything up, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but they do have other forms of constitutional documents. This system has been working well for a very long period of time, and even without a constitution, constitutionalism (which is limiting the government’s power) is still being practiced to some extent. Bibliography Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (ed.): The Social Science Encyclopedia (London: Routledge, 1996). A.V. Dicey: Introduction to the study of The Law of the Constitution (London: Macmillan, 1885). John Louis De Lolme: The Constitution of England (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853). Judith Pryor: Constitution (London: Routledge, 2008). Hilaire Barnett Marinos Diamantides: ‘Sources of the Constitution’, Public Law. Published on 2007 by University of London, accessed from http://www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/public_law/public_chs1to4.pdf Nigel Morris: ‘The Big Question: Why doesnt the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter?’ published on 14/02/2008, accessed from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-why-doesnt-the-uk-have-a-written-constitution-and-does-it-matter-781975.html No author: ‘Magna Carta is favoured date for British Day’, published on 30/05/2006, accessed from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/05/30/nmagna30.xml