The has an uncodified system which is a constitution that is made up of rules that are found in a variety of sources in the absence of a single legal document. A codified constitution is a constitution in which key constitutional provisions are collected within a single legal document. It is often propagated that the implementation of a codified constitution would lead to accountability and clarity. However, the current system we have in Britain already does this, it has been a success for years and produces a good government in relation to democracy and transparency. In this essay, I will evaluate the view that should retain its uncodified constitution as it is a useful and historical system that has proven repeatedly to work.
There are many issues with following a codified constitution, in particular judicial tyranny. The's time of unbroken democratic rule is often seen as a strength of the uncodified constitutional system. In 's uncodified constitution, parliamentary sovereignty is vested in the elected House of Commons. As a result, we see changes to the constitution consequently as a democratic pressure. The powers of the House of Lords were reduced through both the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 because of a growing belief that an unelected second chamber should not be able to stop the impact of an elected government. Through a codified constitution judges would be the people ruling over the constitution. Judges are unelected and socially unrepresentative which would lead to a democratic deficit due to a lack of democratic legitimacy. A codified constitution would be interpreted in a way that is hard to be held publicly accountable. It may also be interpreted due to the subjective views of the judges. A counterpoint to judicial tyranny is that retaining the codified constitution allows a neutral interpretation in that it would be ''policed'' by senior judges and that this would be ensured that the provisions of the constitution. are held up and Judges are 'above' politics, so they are unbiased and neutral. This counterpoint is poor for several reasons.
Firstly, and as aforementioned, Judges are unelected figures, and they are not representative of the population which would lead to a democratic deficit due to a lack of legitimacy. Not all judges are unbiased after all, they are selected by the executive or the person in power so of course they would elect someone who would rule in their favor. The counterpoint also fails to consider that the 'neutral' position some judges might take can reflect the preferences and values of senior judges. Overall, the counterpoint to the concern of judicial tyranny is a weak one and just proves that implementing the codified constitution is useless, and instead of solving issues, it only creates them.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The second issue with implementing a codified constitution is that by doing so, it would effectively abolish parliamentary sovereignty as we know it. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty states that parliament can change and amend any law it desires. With a codified constitution parliament would not be able to change to any law it wishes due to the existence of the constitution, and potentially a bill of rights. This will cause the codified constitution to become the law. Therefore, a codified constitution would undermine the key principle's representative democracy. Under this codified constitution becomes higher law, again it causes more problems in that it is far more rigid than statute law and that it is near impossible to change and edit. The beauty of the democratic system is that when the public changes its opinions on issues, the parliament can debate it and pass it immediately unlike the US constitution which is an example of a codified constitution's rigidity that since 1787, it has only 27 edits made ever.
The counterpoint to this would be that with implementing the codified constitution, the key rules are collected in one single document, they are clearly defined than in an unconstitutional constitution. This creates less confusion about the constitutional rule. This is a valid counterpoint however this will cause issues for Parliament later as their powers are decreased and at best this leads to confusion during a crisis as to what Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary can do; at worst it leads to power politics between the branches as each seeks to maximize their share of political power in this new political system would find itself in. It is imperative to keep the system of parliamentary sovereignty because if it is abandoned for retaining the codified constitution, it would throw the political system into uncharted and complicated territory. Overall, the counterpoint is not particularly good, and it is proved that by retaining a codified constitution, we risk our entire democracy for a set of rigid rules.
A less important but still valid argument against a codified constitution is that it is unnecessary in the sense that the uncodified constitution system we have now is organic and that Government power can still be checked by strengthening the system we already have. Government power is checked and reviewed on a regular basis by an independent judiciary as seen in the Gina Miller Brexit case. Under the system we have today, we can still fix and amend the issues without having to overthrow a history of democracy.
To conclude, should implement a codified constitution. From issues with judicial tyranny and the future of a further broken justice system paired with the possibility of the system of parliamentary sovereignty being thrown out to lastly a confusing set of rules that will inevitably cause a series of political disasters and a valid system being taken away for a difficult and arduous constitution. Thus, it is my opinion that should stick to its unmodified constitution as it is a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'
Stuck on your essay?
