The UK Constitution - Similarities and Differences with Other Countries - Essay Example

? The UK Constitution: similarities and differences with other countries The paper deals with the issue of the UK Constitution, similaritiesand differences of the constitutions of other countries. It is suggested that the absence of the written constitution in the UK signifies a slow development of democratic processes in the country. Moreover, the advancement and a proper informing of the UK citizens about the democratic processes would change the accents of the governmental institutions operations at different levels. The introduction of HRA, different innovations in the constitutional processes of the UK signify a clear advancement of the county’s proper organization and performance. Key words: UK Constitution, democratization, legal organization of the state, branches of power. The UK Constitution: similarities and differences with other countries The legal organizing principles of different states have many differences and have much in common. The legal principles reflect the way the state should do its business and determine the very character of the state. The constitutions of different states have much in common, though UK constitution differs from other counties greatly. There is no one document in the UK regulating the legal documented basis of the country. In order to determine basic points for written constitution implementation in Britain, there is a need to consider historical background of the country’s political system development and correlate it with modern globalized and democratic practices. British Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords (Vink, 2002; Jenkins, 2003). The former institution is a democratic one and it is the most important one. The members of both Houses belong to the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. The Queen is the Head of the State, but she performs ceremonial functions (Allen and Thompson, 2008). The greatest power has the government. Therefore, the main odd characteristic of the British Constitution is that it differs from reality. Nevertheless, law is the basic instrument of the country to regulate relationships within the country at different levels. Courts play the role of disputes settlement. Constitutional law deals with the structures development and the power comes to the Parliament. The courts in Britain have a different degree of power, unlike other courts all over the world. The principle of parliamentary supremacy prevails over the absence of the written constitution in the UK. In accordance with Allen and Thompson (2008): “The constitution is the vehicle through which this occurs, and it is thus a fundamental political statement proclaiming the nature of the state as a dictatorship, democracy, or whatever else it might be” (Chapter 3 ). Therefore, the constitution should be positioned as a complex document, reflecting the provisions for different branches of power and the rights of citizens. Very often, the word “constitution” refers to different political affairs and describes the whole system of the government. The selection of legal rules and regulations is often outlined in the constitution. There is an important argument for British non acceptance of the written constitution. There has never been a revolutionary event in Britain, which could change the principles of legal organization of the country to the very essence. The basis for the future government was borrowed from the document called “the Instrument of Government” acclaimed in 1653 (Bradley and Ewing, 2007). Since that time there were no challenging and crucial events, changing the core essence of the document. The principles for the British constitution development are usually found in this document. This fact can be considered as both advantage and disadvantage of Britain. The negative side is that British constitution does not have a clear statement and there is no evident stability of the country’s legal organization and order (Sharma and Gupta, 2006). Unlike the historical experience of other countries, where revolutions triggered the process of Constitution development, the British lacks it. It is worth considering reformation of the UK Constitution with regards to the modern needs of the nation and the globalized context of the constitution development. Moreover, if there are no historical triggers for restandartization of the legal organization of the country, it is possible to suggest some remarks or amendments. Moreover, with regards to Tomkins: "... the characteristic merit of the English constitution is that its dignified parts are... very old and venerable; while its efficient part ... is decidedly simple and rather modern…and it contains likewise historical, complex, august, theatrical parts, which it has inherited from a long past ,which take the multitude, which guide by an insensible but an omnipotent influence the associations of its subjects.” (cited by Tomkins 2002, p. 740). With respect to this quote, it should be noted that there are many advantages of the UK Constitution and its historical past and experience cannot be denied. The point is here not to change, but amend it and make it more democratic and global, integrating core democratic values and individuals beliefs of the British nation. Unlike other countries, where the main function of the state is performed by the Prime Minister or the President and these principles are regulated in accordance with the courts, the UK has another system of legal regulation, which is based on legal and non-legal documents. Another problem is about British courts’ inability to make independent decisions. Any regulation may be changed in accordance with the changed political rules. The sources of the British constitution are the following: European Union law, acts of the Parliament, principles of equity and the common law (Wilkinson and Picket, 2009; Rittberger, 2005). The constitutions of other countries underline the prevalence of the constitutional norms above other laws. British laws have the same status. There is another claim, signifying that the United Kingdom is approaching to the laws identification having a special status (Tomkins, 2002). Moreover, in other countries with a written constitution there are more difficulties to change constitutional laws than any other laws. The constitution comprises different core principles, which underline how to govern the state. British laws may be changed in an equal manner. Moreover, the fact that British courts do not have a right to deals with the legislation on their own, legislation that is contrary to the constitution. Legal and non-legal rules of Britain differ from the countries with written constitution. Thus, non-legal rules are the integrative part of the constitution. The major parts of the British constitution do not depend on law, but depend on other regulations and non-legal rules or practices, generally referred to as “conventions”. For example, Britain does not have statutory provision the whole of cabinet government (Allen and Thompson, 2008). The introduction of non-legal rules or conventions has a number of implications. First of all, there is a possibility to change the conventions. Further on, written constitution implies that if a person violates the constitution laws he is breaking the law. In UK the situation is different: in case a person acts unconstitutionally, “such action would be unconstitutional” (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). Moreover, in the countries with written constitution, the courts are determining constitutions. Therefore, there is a huge power in such countries. Another essential difference, determined by the British constitution is that a monarch is the Head of the Sate. Prime Ministers under the reign of Queen Elizabeth were accepted and were changed very often. All over the world the monarchy differs. Britain has a constitutional monarchy (Allen and Thompson, 2008). There are a number of legal documents, providing the basic points for the Queen’s behavior. The Queen has a choice whether to act or not to act in accordance with legal regulations, assigned by the Parliament for her. Her role is to appoint the leader of the Party and other ministerial appointments. Another major controversy of the UK constitution is the absence of exact information for the citizens about their rights. The public should respect their rights and starting from 2000 an introduction of the Human Rights Act enabled citizens of the UK to get more information about their rights (Dawn, 2003). The Convention rights in UK courts enabled the latter institutions to advance the British society and respect the human rights. In such a way, in spite of the complicated atmosphere of the UK constitutional processing, there is an open door for a friendly and tolerant atmosphere in the society (Dawn, 2003). A need for balanced human rights protection is another negative outcome of the British constitution. For example, the right to establish entrusted society full of respect should be a right for every British citizen. Consequently, it is possible for the UK courts to have a chance to solve a challenging issue about individual’s rights and the needs of the whole community balancing. Moreover, it should be noted that democratic processes in the UK have a different character. It is on behalf of the government to solve the issues of the law amendment and the HRA would be a balancing document for the rights and responsibilities of the judicial and lawmaking parts of UK Constitution (Dawn, 2003). The change of a potential introduction of written Constitution in the UK would enhance democratic processes in the country. In accordance with Gordon Brown, there is a need to “clarify citizens’ powers and roles, giving more power to the people or taking it closer to the people, expanding people’s choices and increasing people’s participation” (cited by Sharma and Gupta, 2006 in Chapter 3). It is often argued, that suggestion of Brown may be criticized, because there are a lot of incongruities between real life of UK and its legal regulations. As far as we can see, there are more differences than similarities in UK constitution, unlike constitutions of other countries. For example, Germany and France and other European countries reflect citizens’ rights, the authorities and powers of the government etc (Shelton, 2008). In other words, European countries are more involved in the democratization processes than UK. This fact should be changed and reinterpreted in accordance with a specific nature of the country. On the one hand, it is impossible to introduce harsh changes in the UK constitutional processes, because this country has never felt a strong revolutionary trigger and thus it is too hard for the society to be changed in a moment. On the other hand, there is a need to foster democratization processes in the UK, because the country is “tinned” into the conservative norms and dogmas and very often neglects the needs and wants of the contemporaries. Consequently, the paper suggests European standardization of the democratic processes in the UK, advancement of the UK Constitution, as well as development of appropriate norms and standards for further protection of citizens’ rights within the framework of the Constitution. It is should be noted that interpretation of legal documents, regulating political and social organization of Britain is developed with respect to conservative nature of the British life and a stable norm of legal and non-legal norms fulfillment. References 1. Allen, Michael and Thompson, Brian, 2008. Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law. Oxford University Press. 9th ed. 2. Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., 2007. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Pearson Longman. 14th edition. 3. Dawn, O., 2003. Constitutional Reform in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Jenkins, David, 2003. “From Unwritten to Written: Transformation in the British Common-Law Constitution”. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law36:863+. Retrieved November 29, 2011 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002006305). 5. Rittberger, Berthold, 2005. Building Europe's Parliament: Democratic Representation beyond the Nation State. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 29, 2011 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109979918). 6. Sharma, A. and Gupta, A. eds., 2006.The Anthropology of the State. Oxford, Blackwell. 7. Sheldon, Garrett Ward, 2008. “Constituting the Constitution: Understanding the American Constitution through the British Cultural Constitution." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 31:1129+. Retrieved November 29, 2011 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5028845198). 8. Tomkins, Adam, 2002. “The English Constitution.” Constitutional Commentary19:737+. Retrieved November 29, 2011 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002059535). 9. Vick, Douglas W., 2002. "The Human Rights Act and the British Constitution." Texas International Law Journal 37:329+. Retrieved November 29, 2011 (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037622313). 10. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K., 2009. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London, Allen Lane. Read More