The constitution is one of an uncodified nature. This means rules are not held in a single written document. Whereas a written constitution (also known as a codified constitution) is the idea that all the constitutions should be written down in one document. The does not need a written constitution because the strength of the current codified constitution outweighs the weakness. For example, strengths such as the sovereignty of parliament and flexibility of the uncodified constitution can allow the constitution to adapt to the changing society, whereas a written constitution may limit this and may not be progressive according to society. In addition, a codified constitution may disturb the balance of power, which may impact and restrict democracy since judges are unelected.
The current system's flexibility is one of the reasons why does not require a written constitution. A written constitution will make flexibility impossible and therefore it questions the necessity of the written constitution. The current constitution employs an ad hoc progressive technique in which advancements are incremental and contingent on their necessity over time, exposing us to the possibility of evolving toward legal codification rather than political constitutionalism. The constitution has significantly accelerated codification, particularly in the areas of rights and power balancing. The flexibility of the system means laws and regulations can be added according to the situation. For instance, this can be seen through many changes: the addition of Human Rights 1998, Devolution Legislation, Freedom of Information, and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to the legal celebration. In addition, the progressive nature of the codified constitution can be seen through the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, race, and gender equality. The flexibility and the adaptability of adding and removing laws mean that there isn't a need for a written constitution because under a written constitution laws will be hard to amend and may be fixed, making it harder to suit the needs and issues depending on time and society. These legislative milestones are actions introduced and defined by parliament into our unwritten constitution, codified not only in our processes but also in our culture.
Another reason, why there is no need for a written constitution is that it would change the balance of power. Under a written constitution, a change could only be done in 'one big bang' (Oliver, p.150), which would unavoidably strengthen the role and hence the power of the judiciary. For example, under a written constitution, judges may be given the power to make decisions based on amending and maintaining the constitution. This would be unfair to a pro-parliament party because political power can only be wielded through democratic institutions. This means that decision-making power may be given to unelected judges, whereas parliament is based on elected members, therefore making it undemocratic. However, King argues that this case against the written constitution often fetishizes the past without justification. It overemphasizes the role of courts, which is less significant than suggested (King, 2015). This makes the argument weaker because according to King, the fact that judges will get more power is not a massive issue. Nevertheless, One can disagree with King, as codifying the constitution would disrupt this delicate balance, tipping in favor of unelected judges 'a concept that is not rationally in the best interests of a constitution that prides itself on democracy. Therefore, does not need a written constitution, because the change in the balance of power may affect democracy.
Another argument is the idea that a codified constitution upholds parliamentary sovereignty. By protecting sovereignty it can be viewed as a 'guarantor of democracy' as parliament's leading component, because the House of Commons, is elected. According to Bogdanor, there is no use in having a constitution unless one is willing to risk the notion of sovereignty in parliament because codification is 'incompatible with this premise'(Bogdanor, 2009, p.14) codification would limit its powers. This makes the argument stronger. As a result, the concept that parliament cannot be constrained or overridden by any higher body would be overturned, rendering sovereignty a dogma of the past. This means powers to interpret the constitution would go to unelected judges. This demolishes our democratic efforts and creates the prospect of unfair policy, process, and legislation. Therefore, there is no need for a written constitution. Furthermore, Bogdanor (2009), also argues that under a newly written constitution, the right of minorities may be put at risk and therefore may undermine a traditional moral consensus, on which the old informal constitution rested.
In conclusion, there is no need for a written constitution because the retention of flexibility and parliamentary sovereignty allows the constitution to adapt to the progressive society, while democracy is being protected. Under a written constitution, democracy is put at risk, when unelected judges are given more power. In addition, the right of minorities may be put at risk. Therefore, the issues of the written constitution override the need for a written constitution. The argument of retaining flexibility and parliamentary sovereignty is stronger, compared to the idea of needing a written constitution because the written constitution also has issues with balance of power, therefore doesn't solve or create a solution. Therefore, a written constitution is not seen as a necessity. Furthermore, has relied on the unwritten form of the constitution for a long time, that a written constitution may cause unpredictable issues in an uncodified system. Although the current constitution also has problems proved by Brexit, some may argue that they are solvable with complete codification. However, they are also not to be solved by creating another heavy and life-changing revolution of codification. This could lead to unpredictable problems. Therefore, there is no need for a written constitution.
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
How effectively do elections ensure citizens' views are represented?
In this essay, I will argue that elections do not effectively ensure citizens' views are represented. This can be seen through the weakness of the current voting system, the first past the post system (FPTP). I will be referring to both the national and local elections. For Instance, MPs and government can be elected on less than 50 percent of the vote, which means that more than half the people don't think that the elected MPs or government represent their views. In addition, there is a lack of proportionality within the system and the fact that votes are of unequal value means it is difficult to accurately represent the individual view. These outweigh the strength of FPTP and suggest that there is further improvement needed to ensure that people's views are accurately represented.
The fact that MPs and the Prime Minister may be elected with less than 50% of the vote suggests that people's views are not fully represented. Under the FTPT, MPs do not require an overall majority of votes cast to win but can win by receiving one more vote than the second-place contender. Although this system in a way 'promotes clarity of responsibility for policy choices and enables voters to hold governments to account' through one person (Gay, Schleiter and Belu, 2015: 118). However, this results in more votes being cast against the winning candidate rather than for the actual candidate. This suggests that more than half of those polled do not believe that the elected MPs represent their interests. This, therefore, suggest that an election is not effective in ensuring people's view are accurately being represented when more than half in some cases don't vote for them. Furthermore, when turnout data are included, support for parties and candidates is much lower. For example, in the 2015 general election, the turnout in Belfast South was 60%, but Alasdair Mcdonnell received just 14.7 percent of the vote (UK Parliament, 2015). In addition, although the 2015 election produced a single-party majority government (in contrast to that in 2010, which led to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition), it did not mark a return to business as usual (Green, Jane, and Prosser, Christopher, 2016). This can also be compared to the elections at the national level. FPTP regularly produces governments elected on a minority of the popular vote. This marks how the election system is ineffective in representing people's views. The lowest percentage, for example, was recorded in 2005, when Tony Blair was re-elected with '35.2 percent' of the vote (Kopstein, and Lichbach, 2005: 56). This makes the argument stronger as this weakens the mandate enjoyed by the winning party, especially as general elections since 2001 have been characterized by low voter turnout. For instance, younger people often have a lower voter turnout compared to other groups. Evidence shows that 'only about 40 percent turn out to vote' (Grasso, 2016:151). Therefore, their opinions aren't accurately represented. This feature means that significant numbers of voters feel that the system lacks legitimacy and therefore elections are not efficient in ensuring people's views are represented accurately.
Another reason, why elections are not effective in ensuring citizens' views are represented is due to the lack of proportionality and the unequal value of votes under the two-party system. The FPTP method does not accurately transfer the number of voters into seats for each party. This is because the system prefers parties with a concentrated vote over those with dispersed support across a vast geographical region. For example, a party may finish second in many seats, but the FPTP system does not recognise this because only one candidate may win in each constituency. In 2015, for example,IP received over 3.9 million votes but only one seat (Leston-Bandeira and Thompson, 2018:131). Another example is when in 2015 the Scottish National Party displaced Labour as the largest party in Scotland, winning 56 out of 59 seats with 50 per cent of the vote (UK parliament, 2015). Furthermore, FPTP fails to account for the reality that the number of individuals voting for the two major parties has been falling for some time. For example, between 1945 and 1970, each parliament elected 10 MPs from minor parties on average. That number has climbed to 87 MPs by 2015. This shows how the FPTP doesn't represent the current voting behaviour and doesn't accurately reflect people's views.
Dunleavy (2005) touches on this and argues that one needs to stop focussing on the two-party system but instead on how party competition works in an era where increasingly 'dealigned voters' have multiple preferences. Dunleavy (2005) fails to understand that although this concluding statement may suit the context of the PR system, however, it is questionable whether it suits the current FPTP voting system. In addition, the Fixed-term Parliament Act was only introduced to make the coalition government more stable. However Gay, Schleiter and Belu (2015) notes that the Act's existence makes future coalitions more likely. This shows that election is not reliable and effective in creating a stable government, while accurately representing people's views. In addition, Curtice (2019) notes that the 2019 election bucked the trend of 2010 and 2017 in delivering a solid single-party majority for the Conservatives, but also that the earlier tendency of the system, at least since 1945, to deliver majority power to the largest single party still has not returned. This point in a way reflects the two-party system and the way how the voting system is not accurate in representing people's views.
In conclusion, elections are not effective in ensuring citizens' views are represented. This is due to the weakness of the FPTP system. It doesn't ensure that people's individual views are accurately represented. This is because MPs and government can be elected on less than 50 per cent of the vote, which means that more than half the people don't think that the elected MPs or government represent their views. This is a big issue and shows a major flaw in the system. In addition, there is a lack of proportionality within the system and the fact that votes are of unequal value. The fact that a smaller constituency's votes have bigger value compared to the bigger constituency, means votes are being wasted. These outweigh the strengths of the elections system because the wastage of votes means individual votes are not represented and means minorities' votes are put aside. Therefore, this makes the argument stronger that elections are not effective in representing citizens' views. This suggests that there is further improvement needed to ensure that citizens' views are accurately represented. A single transferable vote system may address those concerns and problems of FPTP and may be a better system for representing people's views accurately.
Stuck on your essay?
