Q.
1 Assess the advantages and disadvantages of a written constitution for the UK system of
Government.
Ans: This part of the question belongs to the chapter Constitution. Topics that will be discussed in the
answer are the a) what is the Constitution b) whether UK Constitution is written or unwritten c)
Classifications of the UK Constitution and Comparision between written and uncodified form of
constitution in UK.
“Constitution” is a requirement to run a state or country. The constitution of a state laminates or
determine the powers of the institutions which govern a state and maintain the “separation of powers”
between the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive. The progress, democracy, defense and protection of
the civilian of a state is also a state constitution. It describes the relationship between the government
and the state and between the state and the citizens. There are two forms of constitution, one is called
codified, and the other is called non-codified. The codified constitution has a proper set of law written in
a single document. But a non-codified constitution does not have a proper document. Too many sources
are assumed which make the constitution HRA 1999, but the main source “Common Law” considered.
The history of the “constitution” of Great Britain begins in 1215, when the barons forced King John to
accept the “Magna Carta”. The “Magna Carta” was the first written document of principle relating to the
royal family. The point of “Magna Carta” was that no one is above the law, not even the king, his family
and his government. It was a treaty that determined the power of the king. Finally, on 15 June 1215, King
John agreed to the “Magna Carta” at Running mead. This was the beginning of the British constitutional
system.
The Magna Carta documents underwent further changes after that and are still in existence today. Four
centuries later, in the 17th century, King Charles I died of ill health. After his death, there was no
legislative body to control the state. Oliver Cromwell wanted to create instruments in a codified form for
Britain. This ideology led to a civil war in Great Britain. Unfortunately, Oliver Cromwell died on
September 3, 1658. But when Charles II returned as King of Great Britain, he abandoned the instrument
of government. In the 18th century, the British Parliament became independent.
Most of the countries in the world follow the USA pattern of constitution. Means that their constitution
is written complied in single document. These countries follow “The aspiration is to include everything
that is important to be complied in a single document” constitution rule. But the UK constitution is in a
different style. It assumed as it is unwritten but in reality, it written somewhere but not in a single
document like USA or Pakistan. So, it to be called a constitution in non-codified form.
The constitution is the supreme authority and supreme authority of law within the system of the state.
But the parliament of Great Britain is supreme, the reason for making parliament supreme is that its
constitution is in non-codified form and on the other hand if they have a codified constitution then their
constitution will be supreme instead of parliament. If the constitution of a country is non-codified, then
that constitution is flexible and easy to change. As the UK is a state where a non-codified form of
constitution applies, it is easy for them to change their constitution. On the other hand, if the
constitution of any state is in codified form, its constitution is rigged, and it is a tedious process to make
changes. Like when Ireland wanted to allow divorce, but they were forced to hold a referendum because
it was in their constitution, and they were bound by it. On the other hand, the Parliament of Great
Britain only passes an Act to amend the Constitution. The flexibility of the UK can be seen in the
European Communities Act 1972, when the UK Parliament simply make a referendum and pass an act.
They became part of the European Union.
26/100
Abdullah it may be your first attempt but considering that you sat for exams last year it is a very
poor attempt. There was no structure, no relevance to the question and there was no link to the
question. The question required you to have a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
the written const. it should just have been the discussion of the comparison like written,
unwritten, unitary, federal so on and so forth. There was deep discussion of History of Magna
Carta and there was no such nexus to the question.
How should your answer structure be:
Introduction
What is requires?
Stance (if needed)
Discussion of the classifications in detail
Conclusion (from the above said discussion it can be extracted that the UK constitution is
flexible and may not be changed or that UK doesnot need a codified const etc?
