The Case for a Written UK Constitution
The United Kingdom is one of the few democratic countries in the world that does not have a single, written constitution. Others include Canada, New Zealand and Israel. To date, its constitution is a combination of written and unwritten sources, including statutes, common law, conventions and somewhat esoterically, royal prerogatives. The reason for this is predominantly historical. Since 1688, Britain has not experienced a revolution or regime change, which often leads to a constitutional initiative, such as the American or the French Revolution. Britain’s constitution has evolved slowly over time under relative stability and as such, it has never been deemed necessary to list the fundamental laws and principles of the country's political system.
The current constitution is deficient for three reasons. Its lack of clarity, its failure to properly protect fundamental rights and the inadequacy of the current devolution settlement for Scotland and Wales. Firstly, the fact that the UK’s constitution is not codified in a single document means that the place of certain key governmental mechanisms lack clarity. For example, the legal status of referendums has never been properly set out. Secondly, although Britain does have a Human Rights Act, that legislation does not enjoy the same status as a list of fundamental rights in a codified constitution. As it is not entrenched, it does not have any special protection and can be amended or overturned. The current devolution settlement requires a written constitution that properly sets out the position of the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales and their respective powers.
Bearing this in mind, here are some arguments in favour of the UK adopting a written constitution:
Clarity and Accessibility:
A written constitution would provide a clear and easily accessible document outlining the fundamental principles and rights of all UK citizens. This can enhance public understanding of their rights and the functioning of the government. It would also provide those in government with clear parameters within which they have to work.
Legal Certainty:
A formal constitution would bring legal certainty, as it would serve as a supreme law that can be referred to in all legal disputes. This contrasts with the current situation where constitutional principles are dispersed among various sources which often leads to confusion and misinterpretation (both willful and accidental).
Protection of Rights:
Explicitly enumerating individual rights within the framework of a written constitution, would provide a stronger legal basis for citizens to challenge any encroachments on their rights. This may contribute to a more robust protection of civil liberties and greater public awareness of said rights.
Limitation of Government Power:
A clearly written, unambiguous constitution could establish clear checks and balances on the powers of different branches of government. Thus limiting the potential for abuse of power and ensuring a more effective separation of powers.
Modernisation and Adaptability:
Another key benefit of a written constitution, is the ability to be able to make relevant amendments and updates that reflect changing societal values and circumstances. This adaptability is often considered crucial in a rapidly evolving world. New socio-political issues, especially those driven by technology and the global environment, often need to be addressed as quickly as they emerge.
International Reputation:
Having a written constitution could enhance the UK's international reputation by aligning its governance structure with the constitutional norms followed by most democratic nations. Many international institutions are built upon mutually held ideas and concepts. Enshrining commonly held values and ideas often affords diplomatic, political and commercial benefits.
Citizen Engagement:
Having a clear constitution can positively impact civic education and engagement. Citizens can become more aware of the mechanics of government as well as their constitutional rights and responsibilities. A better informed electorate can make more effective political choices and become more active in local and national government.
Reducing Constitutional Uncertainty:
The lack of a written constitution can lead to uncertainty, particularly during times of constitutional crisis. The events arising from the Brexit referendum and the political deadlock that reached a peak in 2019 being a clear example. Having a clear and precise constitutional framework could provide a clear route for resolving such situations.
Judicial Review:
A written constitution would enhance the role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing constitutional principles through judicial review. This would therefore provide a strong mechanism for holding the government accountable, aiding or sanctioning them when circumstances required. It would also facilitate definitive answers on constitutional interpretation, far more efficiently.
Symbolic Value:
It can be argued that there is a positive, symbolic value to adopting a written constitution. It signals a commitment to transparency, democracy and the rule of law. It provides a cultural foundation upon which to build and a degree of social stability in knowing that certain principles are enshrined in law.
It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list and opinions on this matter will naturally vary. There are also arguments against adopting a written constitution, with some people favouring the flexibility and evolutionary nature of the UK's current constitutional arrangements. The debate over whether the UK should have a written constitution continues and any constitutional change would likely be a significant and complex process.
