Britain's Unwritten Constitution

20/10/2012

7 Comments

 
Please read the paper above and comment.  Do you think Britain's Unwritten Constitution works?  Why?  Why not?  Does Britain need a written constitution? 
7 Comments
Andrea
24/10/2012 09:22:45 am

Why does a constitution have to be written of be a single document? In case of the UK, their “constitution” is based on several written documents such as the Magna Carta, Act of Settlement in 1701, Parliament Act of 1911, etc. If the combinations of such documents were to be considered a constitution, they would indeed have an old constitution. There is no single document listing the individual’s constitutional rights, but why should there be one? This permits the UK to be malleable, to change laws by a simple majority, to be independent from past legislations. The constitution should, in fact, vary with society. UK’s traditions insert the established doctrines, principles and codes of conduct to their people. Furthermore, an unwritten constitution gives the parliament the necessary sovereignty, no parliament should be trapped to who came before, nor trap who is to come.

Reply
Daniel
24/10/2012 11:53:11 am

What else may a constitution give to a nation instead of lighter dictatorship? You can’t do this, can’t do that, needs to do this, needs to do that -- but your free! According to Oxford, dictatorship is the “absolute authority in any sphere” or “government by a dictator”. The difference relies on the fact that the constitution can be difficultly altered by amends, which just serves as putting a moustache or not at your Pinochet or Hitler cute little face.

I believe that an unwritten constitution guarantees a more democratic solution to assure individual rights and obligations within society. The only criticism I find important to highlight is the probable malleable governs that – depending on which side is ruling – will ask for one thing one time, but will ask for another other time, etc, creating a somewhat instable order.

However, this tradition implies the order, which for me fits very well since I believe on men’s capability of organizing themselves “instinctively” which is kind of what happens in UK. Nevertheless, having a constitution just makes people depend on laws that most of them did not do directly – canceling the whole democratic view on it. Which, going back to the UK, can be seen as the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Act of Settlement, Parliament Acts, but they are less coercive than one hardcore, unquestionable constitution.

With these acts, cartas and bills UK would fit a “lightest dictatorship”, yet still more democratic in this sense. In order to have a so called democratic nation, they need to free from any type of imposed order. I mean, democracy is the rule of the people, but when we elect people to rule for us and make rules for us, I believe that this abandon the whole purpose. Anarchy, indeed, is the true democracy if interpreted literally. And in this UK, Sid Vicious would like living.

Reply
Daniel
24/10/2012 11:53:50 am

you're free*

Reply
Tiago Fonseca
25/10/2012 08:58:56 am

I believe a government does not need a written constitution in oreder to be democratic. The citizens of the UK accept the fact of not having a constitution, and their government is based on previous documents, such as, the Magna Carta and many others. Sure, there is the argument where the lack of a Constitution may result in a abuse of power, but not only is the Parliament sensitive to the rule of Law, it is more capable of protecting one`s idividual rights due to the high courts strong power. UK has a Rational-Legal legitimacy, therefor it does not matter the presence of a Constitution, because that is the way they want it. Each nation must organize themselves as they see fit, or else there will be disorder, and the government will have no legitimacy.

Reply
Alana Cavalcanti
28/10/2012 05:18:48 am

By definition a constitution is a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed. There is no part saying that it should be written down, what matters are that it is efficient and respected. The United Kingdom wisely based their fundamental principles created based in fragmented parts of distinct documents. The majority is what determines if the law is going to be changed or not. Isn’t this the ideal part of a democracy? The autocratic process of changing laws seems not to agree with the need and desire of the ultimate people. The traditional legitimacy of the constitution of the United Kingdom is what make it function properly. The lack of constitution make one decision influence the other that can be done years later, which make the ones judging more careful and meticulous. In unstable nations without a traditional legitimacy probably this method would not function and lead to an extreme abuse of power turning it to a dictatorship or anarchy. The fact that the population understands and agree with the method that is being used, indeed influence the way it work. What is the law is not written in a piece of paper but it is exposed to the population.

Reply
Nevo
29/10/2012 08:21:53 am

I believe that by having no written constitution, Britain doesn't change in much, since their people believe in tradition and trust it with their own lives. Even if the legislative, executive and judiciary branches don't have a concrete written constitution to follow, people believe that through their tradition, those who were chosen to represent in those respective powers will follow and adhere the laws even without them being written. For me it is wrong to say Britain doesn't have an official constitution, since for the government and the people what matters is their tradition promise, where they will work hard accepting the laws that were told them to be followed. No one can compare the constitution of two different countries and say one is more official than the other, or that one is a "political constitution" and the other is a "legal constitution". For me both of those constitutions are legal, if they are being followed by the people and the government.

Reply
Victor
29/10/2012 08:23:44 am

It is a accomplished utopia. A country that has no ACTUAL constitution and still maintains its power, authority and sovereignty in a world where the liars are the masters, it is a fact worthy of applauder and salutes. Britain has developed throughout its history its constitutions. Unlike almost every single country in the world, history was useful, due to the fact that several countries must create new constitutions every once in a while. In Britain, the honesty, the character and the rationality have made them accomplishment of this feat of a modern country have no need for a constitution. I believe, that this is the most evolved state of a government/state. The reason why I believe this is because constitutions exists because of a need of regulation, this need comes because certain people are not following their duties as citizens and some others are not receiving their benefits that they have the right to. In order to make things work, constitutions are created with the intuit of regulate people. In a system where people know their duties and rights, the need of an institution that punishes is not required. This, in my opinion is the closest to Anarchy, to freedom, to the pillars of character in a full country. I believe that there is no need for a written constitution, Britain is being so great without it that there is no need to create one. Creating one could destroy the equilibrium that Britain have found. Also, I believe, as it was previously stated that a constitution comes from a need, and I believe that in the development scale, we never go back, therefore, in Britain, unless they backtrack, a constitution will never be required

Reply



Leave a Reply.