Written Constitution of the UK - Essay Example

? Written Constitution of UK Written constitution is referred to a formal document which posits the constitutional setting, governing rules over political system and rights and duties of citizens in a codified form (Hamilton, 2005). The constitution of Britain is not complied in a single written document; instead it is derived from several related resources such as traditions of parliamentary acts and other written and non written sources such as European Union constitution. The basic purpose of this paper can be revealed as “presentation of a case for written constitution in UK”. At present, there are only three countries which do not have written constitution including United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel. Magna Carta may perhaps be a first signed document of constitutional nature. It will complete its 800 years in 2015. The crucial time of emerging requirements reveals the need of formal written document in shape of proper constitution explicating the rights and duties of government bodies and the public individuals (McLean, 2010). Absence of constitution does not mean that United Kingdom does not have any constitution; rather it means the absence of a complied document that could conjoin the contemporary practices of constitutional nature such as from Magna Carta, Bill of rights and parliamentary acts plus the unwritten conventions which are followed broadly. The essential question, which is put forward to get the answer of need of a written constitution, is further divided in to two extremes. One reveals that this would help the UK to integrate with other nations which have their written constitutions while the other explains that there is no need of a constitution because the running monarch system is substantial to meet up the requirements effectively. It is also considered that a new document may confuse the people’s vision and may make it vague because every legislative participant is immune to the current contemporary practices (Kwan, 2010). The power of parliament, that exposes enacting or discontinuing any law with in the country, is known as doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It also includes premier rights and laws as well as institutional structure. Mutual consent of all branches of the government, which include Judiciary, legislation and executive, is important and vital to pass any law and order. European convention of human rights protected fundamental higher status to rights and impacted an immediate consequence in contour of Human Rights Act 1998. In current scenario, the act may be reinstated by a straightforward majority as it has been elucidated in above statement (Colley, 2011). The establishment of the rights is expected as The proposed rights by council of Europe must be recognized and accepted by the entire European Democratic Agencies Most of the clauses are identical as which are practiced by Britain Judicial Department as after consenting the Bill of Rights in 1689, it is simply the re statement of rephrasing of the contemporary upholding The national judiciary contemplates the rights in adjustment to domestic piece of law. It is accommodated in such a way that its compatibility with general legislative laws is not harmed. In order to explain the role of written constitution and definition of its significance, the role of several branches of government is required to delineate at priority basis. After lucid prioritization, it would be more favorable to generate the outline structure of constitution document in written form. It does not possess momentous importance that the constitution needs to explain the overall structural outline of government supportive institutions. In lieu of defining the role of institutions in profundity, it is enough to explain the limitation of powers. It is a pre requisite of not getting the constitution over complex. Such as, the constitution of United States does not explain the procedure of elections and polling as well as the senate structure (Consoc.org.uk). A general referendum should be conducted in order to get public approval for formal constitution in written document form. The apparent importance reveals several realistic insinuations such as the power of constitution belongs to general public and ultimately the superlative power will be held by the people. A written constitution will hence be able to differentiate what is unconstitutional. The issue of accountability will resolve because of clear constitutional boundaries and legitimate reward and punishment system (Kwan, 2010). Along with general public referendum, it may also be suggested that parliamentary referendum should be conducted. Two third ratio of majority will endorse the need of written constitution. This might conquer the snag of people supreme power by merely ignoring the legislative personnel. It may be a better way to walk along with everyone. The principle of parliament sovereignty makes the proposal of written constitution insignificant, in opinion of many theorists. As per the said rule, the power of upcoming parliaments, in order to revoke current legislation, cannot be restrained. However many of the countries, which previously possessed informal constitutions, have lucratively composed new written constitution such as Canada (Consoc.org.uk). In opinion of several political scientists, it is suggested that the bill of rights may be amended and forwarded as a written document rather than including the constitutional structure in it. The focused area is the accountability rather than the constitutional practices. But still it will remain incomplete so this suggestion has not taken in to account for further actions and implementations (Colley, 2011). Critiques have a number of condemnations against written constitution of the United Kingdom. These people include classical theorists, in general, who are resisting the change because they are well accommodated to the current system (Kwan, 2010). They do not have any objection with conventions and traditions. Following are the points to criticism Britain is going well without written constitution for hundreds of years yet it did not face any adverse consequence which could derive the urgency of a document The convention system is more advantageous while sticking on the heritage and legacy Yet United Kingdom is a multi cultural society comprising of several civilizations in it, it is very difficult to delineate the fundamental rights which could be implemented to all alike The constitutional codifications under the positive forecasts may result in selection bias. This will employ the impact of preference of the party establishment to be in the regime. The entire process is no doubt a lot of time consuming, cost bearing, requiring expertise of compilation, media attention seeking and requires a lot of government concentration over the single issue. However it would also cause an international relation impact. This would be a great deal to persuade the change resistant people to make them concur to acknowledge the written constitution. The interpretation role decision is a crucial circumstance to come over with. If anyone opines that it should be handed over to Judiciary then it may perhaps be a dire idea because they may be put out from offices by parliament in case of gross delinquency. A written constitution might be expected to preserve the contemporary practices of legislation and parliament observance. If the written constitution is decided to be compiled, it would need to make it generalized for all alike. The houses of lords would also be included in the implementation. Otherwise it would go inadequate if only legislation and public is to adopt the clauses and sections revealed in to it. Conclusively, the pros of a written document constitution include the safeguard of public interests, proper reward and punishment system, will provide a lucid guideline for what actually is illegal, it will offer a full and fledge statement of rights and the most important it will call for compilation of the entire formal and informal conventions to be implemented in future and present. The cons of written documents include the time wastage, no enormous need, resistance by people, international impact as well as uncertainty of the upshots and the risk of overall compliance with public as well as government interests (Colley, 2011). Hence it is a momentous decision to be taken by the government of the United Kingdom. However it will safeguard the future of the country if the government steps forward bravely. Many of the countries have successfully turned their system of constitution from conventional to formal one like Canada. Now the theorists are seeking any constitutional developmental input from the government of Britain. It would retain the interest of international critiques and analysts enormously. The acceptability and resistance rates have been calculated several times followed by informal polls. These reveal that there is a mixed trend of people who are in favor and against a written document as the formal constitution. It would derive immense challenge for the government to reveal the public interests in form of rights and checks according to their expectations. References Colley, L. (2011) ‘Why Britain needs a written constitution.’ The Guardian, November 4 2011. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/04/why-britain-needs-written-constitution (Accessed 17 May 2013) The Constitution Society (n.d.). A Written constitution? Available at: http://www.consoc.org.uk/discover-the-facts/do-we-need-a-written-constitution/ (Accessed 17 May 2013) Hamilton, J. (2005) The Constitution. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub. Co. Kwan, J. (February 2010) A written constitution for the United Kingdom: TWS Paper Policy. Available at: http://thewilberforcesociety.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/A-WRITTEN-CONSTITUTION-FOR-THE-UNITED-KINGDOM.pdf (Accessed 17 May 2013) McLean, I. (2010) What's wrong with the British constitution?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More

 

Read More