Britain is a unique country. Britain is one of a few democracies that does not possess a written constitution. New Zealand and the State of Israel are the only other remaining nations that like Britain have no codified set of rules. Britain is regarded as having unwritten constitution as the rules to how the state is run are not codified, (there is no single document which will provides the rights of the country’s subjects). Although Britain has no written constitution, its constitution is arrived at through a variety of sources. These pieces of Britain’s constitutional framework provide an integral part to the country’s democracy and are derived for a number of sources, which over time have gradually become accepted. The sources, which the British Constitutions comes from, are as follows: structure of government, statute law, common law, constitutional conventions, and the Royal Prerogative.
The government of the U.K is made up of three different functions. There are the legislature (processes the law of the country), the executive (creates and implements the law), the executive is the government which by convention is the party which has the largest majority) and the judiciary (consist of the law courts and is involved in enforcement of the law). The head of these three arms of government is the sovereign, although, actual political power resides with the Prime Minister. This form of governance is known as the fusion of powers.
Statutes (or legislation) are laws passed by parliament. These are written sets of laws which are enforced by the Law courts (or the Judiciary). Over time, certain pieces of legislation have come to be regard as put of the cornerstone of British democracy. Examples of statues, which have developed constitutional significance, are the Magna Carta of 1215, which aimed to limited the power of king by law and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which states that individuals should be informed of the reasons for their arrest and the changes brought against them. Parliament as a result of it being sovereign (no body or law is above that of parliament) it can enact any law it wishes as nothing it does can be regarded as being unconstitutional or illegal.
Common law is the legal precedent set or made by the judiciary. Other courts of law if presented with same circumstance must follow decisions made by a court of law. Consequently, judges are bound to law of precedent, but this can be over turned. However, as result of not having written constitution judges can and have ignored the rules of precedent.
Constitutional conventions are informal and uncodified procedural agreements that are followed by the institutions of the state. These conventions are the unwritten rules relating to exercise of governmental power through the act of precedent, which is subsequently, considered binding. As part of the unwritten constitution, constitutional conventions of play a key role. They are rules that are observed by the various constituted parts though they are not written in any document having legal authority, there are often underlying enforcing principles that are themselves not formal and codified. Examples of the constitutional conventions in the UK are follows: the Prime Minster is by convention selected from the political party which the largest majority after the general election, that the monarch grants the Royal Assent to all legislation and that the House of Lords passes the any bills relating to the government’s election pledge (i.e. its manifesto).
This source along with the conventions of the constitutions is perhaps the most important aspect of the British political modal. It is the main instrument of Britain’s unwritten constitution and has over the years been at the centre of debate on parliamentary reform, in particular the debate centred on whether Britain should adopt a written constitution on the grounds that this piece of our constitution is “undemocratic”.
The Royal Prerogative contains special powers held by the monarch but exercised by the government on the advice of the Prime Minster and the cabinet in the name of the sovereign. It is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny and is completely under the discretion of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council. Some of these power include; the ability to select and dismiss ministers, to dissolve parliament, the declaration of war, declaring a state of emergency and expelling a foreign national from the U.K. Since parliamentary authority is not required in the exercising of Royal Prerogative powers, this provides the executive with the ability to sidestep the legislature, but could if abused result (if there growing resentment within parliament) to a vote of no confidence, which could ultimately bring the Prime Minister and his government.
There has been, as mentioned previously, discussions on whether Britain should adopt a written constitution and whether the Royal Prerogative denies basic democratic freedoms. The arguments for Britain to have a written constitution are that it would provide a greater level of clarity as would enshrine the constitutional law and customs of this country giving the ability to scrutinise the whole political system. It would also provide more checks and balances giving greater influence to the judiciary, which would enable it to hold parliament and government to account more readily. Having a written constitution would safeguard the constitution itself for it would prevent any government which has an overwhelming majority from carry out any changes of constitutional nature, ultimately this would limited the power of the executive (governments need to have majority if they wish to make any bills an act of parliament).
A written constitution would also allow parliament to be able to hold to the account the executive, as it would prevent the government form the using Royal Prerogative powers, which by passes parliament. In the United States for example to change, any put of the constitution requires at least a ⅔ majority. Possessing a codified constitution would also offer protection from authoritarian groups, which could jeopardise the fabric of democracy in this country. The last case for a written constitution is in relation to the rule of law. The UK’s Parliament is subject to no authority beyond itself, there is no political or legal body above parliament, this according to those advocating for a written constitution goes against the principle of the rule of law.
There are number of opposing arguments against establishing a written constitution. The current political system of the UK has a high degree of flexibility and has within it a number of checks and balances. The flexibility of the British constitution allows governments’ to change the laws (providing it has the backing of parliament) with relative ease. The current system also has with it the necessary checks and balance to enable it to bring the executive to account. For example if the government wished to pass certain legislation it could only be come law if had the majority of parliament, opposition parties could join forces which could ultimately see the bill being voted down. Philip Norton (1984) argues that under the existing constitution, there is no mechanism, which could introduce a written constitution it would be virtually impossible. “There is body that can authorise or legitimise it. An Act of Parliament creating or stipulating the procedures for creating one would derive it legitimacy from the doctrine which it sought to destroy…Hence, to create a new, written constitution we would have start from scratch, disavow by some, our existing constitution.”
For instance in the current political system, according to Grant (1994), the judiciary is regarded as being apolitical. “Judges are largely separate from the executive and the legislature and they should be appointed on a non-political basis. Senior judges can be removed from office by a majority in both Houses of Parliament; their salaries are not subject to party debate”. Its decisions therefore are divorced from the realities of politics, ultimately it a written constitution could cause the Judiciary to make decisions on a constitutional nature, which could over rule an action or decision made by the government preventing it in the extreme case from carrying out its election pledge.
The Royal Prerogative is exercised without reference to any democratically constituted body and consequently it can be argued that the exercise of such powers denies democratic freedoms “the prerogative is all about the power of government over the people and virtually nothing to do with the power of the people over government” (Independent on Sunday, 17th July 1994)
This is arguably true in the short term. However, in the long term the government is answerable to parliament (which is the highest authority in the country) for its actions and ultimately to the electorate. Clearly any government must (by convention) therefore act with due regard to this and to this extent it is possible to argue that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative within the context of existing constitutional conventions does not necessarily deny our basic rights.
To help explain where power and authority reside in the U.K, three models have been developed to help illustrated who exercises power in Britain. These models are the pluralist model, the elitist and the Marxist model. Power according to the pluralist viewpoint, is exercised by the people as opposed to a small elite core. The pluralist model is arrived through two main arguments. Pluralist argue that if the vast majority of the people feel that their representatives in parliament are not listening to public opinion or are failing in the deliver of their election pledge, then the people can vote their representatives out of parliament and ultimately from government at the next general or local election. The representatives of the people thus need to act in accordance with their wishes or face exposition from public office. The second argument used by the pluralists to argue that power is in the hand of the electorate is that people are able to join various organisations (such as trade unions, political parities or charities), which then gives the people the opportunity to lobby their representative on matters which concerns them.
The elitist and Marxist models of power are similar to each and differ completely from the pluralist position. From an elitist perspective, power is maintained by a tiny minority, which according to this viewpoint holds power for their ends against the interests of the majority. Where pluralism argues that the people can exert power and influence through various organisations, elitist theorist on the hand argue that these groups (especially political parties) often prevent different views from being expressed if it contradicts the organisation’s ethos. Research into the British political system has led many elite theorists to argue that there is in Britain a small political class known as the “establishment” that maintains powers. This clique of people shares the social values, has the same educational background and invariable come from the social class. “A number of researches have found that the majority of those who occupy elite positions in Britain are recruited from a minority of the population with highly privileged backgrounds” (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995)
The Marxist model on power is similar in nature to that of the elite model. However, advocates of this of this political model argue that power reside not in the “psychological domination” of the ruling class over the people as argued by the elite theorist but resides in those who control the vast bulk the nation’s wealth. In short, those who have economic power also have political power. The Marxist model also argues that the whole democratic procedure of the U.K. is sham and does nothing more then maintain the status quo, preventing any really changes from occur.
Britain, depending on the viewpoint is one or all three of the above models. However, the model, which perhaps accurately displays the exercise of power in Britain, is the pluralist model. In Britain, the electorate (can if it so wishes) seek the removal of the government by voting against the party in power, members of Parliament, who are our representatives, can bring down the Prime Minister and the government by issuing a vote of no confidence if they feel the government is responding to the will of the people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment