DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
CONSTITUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

SUBJECT-POLITICAL SCIENCE

NAME OF THE FACULTY-PROF.D.Y.NIRMALA DEVI

Name of the Candidate-PRIYANKA SINGH

Roll No. -2017068
Semester-1st

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Prof. T.Y.Nirmala Devi
who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic ‘Constitution
and Constitutional Government’ which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came
to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.

Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.

2
 ABSTRACT

Introduction

A Constitution is a set of rules and regulations according to which a country works and these
rules are binding on the citizens of that country.

A government which is bind by the rules and regulations of a constitution is constitutional

government. The main function of a constitutional government is distribution of powers among
Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.

Now-a-days most of the countries in the world have a Constitution and Constitutional
Government.

Purpose

To study about the problems which are faced by India in administration due to constitutional
form of government.

Merits and Demerits of a written constitution.

Importance or Necessity of a constitution in democracies.

Conclusion

From this project, we will be able to understand the importance of constitution in today’s
world. It will provide us with a knowledge as to how constitution plays a vital role in working
of the government.

3
 CONTENTS

 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..5
 Objectives/Aims of the Study…………………………………………………..6
 Significance & Benefit of the study…………………………………………….6
 Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………6
 Review of Literature (Review of earlier studies)……………………………….6
 Research methodology…………………………………………………….........6
 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………7
 Body of the project
1.Constitution……………………………………………………………………8
2.What is Constitutional Government?.................................................................10
3.Constitutional Features across the World……………………………………...13
4.Classifying Constitutional Government………………………………………..15
5.Differences between Constitutional Government and Non-Constitutional
Government……………………………………………………………………….17
6.Contemporary Levels of Government…………………………………………..20
7.National Government……………………………………………………………21
8.Governmental Constitution………………………………………………………23
9.Constitutional Courts…………………………………………………………….23
 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………25

4
 INTRODUCTION

Constitutional Government is a regime type that is characterized by the fact that "Government"
operates within a set of legal and institutional constraints that both limits its power and protects
the individual liberty of the citizen of a polity. Central elements of constitutional government
therefore are the set of rules or "basic laws" that establish (usually in writing) the duties, powers
and functions of government (i.e. the institutional autonomy) and define the relationship
between state and individual (i.e. individual autonomy). This complex of institutional relations
is a regime type, because it is fundamentally different from those states where the "Rule of
Law" is either absent (or suspended), or is defined on the basis of other principles than
"liberalism" (meaning commitment to the principles of individual liberty, freedom to associate,
tolerating other mans belief and respecting minorities, and consenting equal rights to all
citizens within the polity; see Liberalism). Hence, constitutional government is based on a
"contract" between the "Principal" and the "Population" at large and that can be considered as
an authoritative guideline concerning the "Room to Maneuver" of government. The origins and
development of "constitutionalism" can be traced to its roots in the 18th Century enlightenment
and the Bourgeois Revolutions in the US and Europe. This overview will show that at present
the meaning of constitutional government appears to overlap stronglywith the idea of the "rule
of law" and also has influenced the chosen organization of the state (its format, e.g.
republicanism, federalism, parliamentarism,) and the values of a society (Liberty, Social and
Economic aims like public welfare, human rights etc. (see Human Rights). Taken in this sense
Constitutional Government is both a principle for organizing public life and a framework (of
reference) for assessing the sustainability of a political system. It can be considered as one of
the building blocks of not only organizing a society, but also as being crucial for understanding
how and to what extent national government contributes to sustainable conditions of society
(see Economic Development and Government).1

1
https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C04/E6-32-01-02.pdf

5
 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objective of the researcher is to study about the problems which are faced by India in
administration due to constitutional form of government, Merits and Demerits of a written
constitution, Importance or Necessity of a constitution in democracies.

SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF THE STUDY

The significance of this project is to understand the constitution of India in respect to the
context of the functioning of the government machinery at the helm of the laws made and their
relation to the daily working process of the common people in context to this constitution. This
of the day is intricately related to the same.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

It has a very wide scope and we can’t focus on all the segments due to time constraint so we
are just concentrating on one segment that is how Constitution of India is helpful in establishing
the government in India and how it is affecting the administration process in India.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this research, the researcher will refer the books, cases, articles, research studies,
legislations.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

We are going to use Doctrinal method of research particularly Descriptive or Explanatory

research.

The mode of citation used is OSCOLA.

6
 HYPOTHESIS

The Constitution of India is a complete source behind the government of India and the
administration in India. It has shaped the political governance of India. Having a Constitution
and a Constitutional government is better than not having it as Constitution guarantees a proper
and fixed administration and is the ultimate source of governance.

7
CONSTITUTION

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which

a state or other organization is governed.2 These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what
the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal
documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written
down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. Some
constitutions (such as the constitution of the United Kingdom) are uncodified, but written in
numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties.

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and
unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its
constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a
constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws
are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as
limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as
fundamental rights.

The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the
world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts,12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 146,385
words 3in its English-language version, while the Constitution of Monaco is the shortest written
constitution, containing 10 chapters with 97 articles, and a total of 3,814 words.

India, also known as Bharat, is a Union of States. It is a Sovereign Socialist Secular

Democratic Republic with a parliamentary system of government. The Republic is
governed in terms of the Constitution of India which was adopted by the Constituent
Assembly on 26th November, 1949 and came into force on 26th January, 1950. The
Constitution provides for a Parliamentary form of government which is federal in structure
with certain unitary features. The constitutional head of the Executive of the Union is the
President. As per Article 79 of the Constitution of India, the council of the Parliament of
the Union consists of the President and two Houses known as the Council of States (Rajya
Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). Article 74(1) of the Constitution provides

2
The New Oxford American Dictionary, Second Edn., Erin McKean (editor), 2051 pages, May 2005, Oxford
University Press, ISBN 0-19-517077-6.
3
Jump up to: a b "Constitution Rankings - Comparative Constitutions Project". Comparative Constitutions
Project. Retrieved 2016-06-05.

8
that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as its head to aid and
advise the President, who shall exercise his/her functions in accordance to the advice. The
real executive power is thus vested in the Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as
its head.

Generally, every modern written constitution confers specific powers to an organization or

institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abide by the said
constitution's limitations. According to Scott Gordon, a political organization is constitutional
to the extent that it "contain[s] institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the
protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the
minority".[10]

Activities of officials within an organization or polity that fall within the constitutional or
statutory authority of those officials are termed "within power" (or, in Latin, intra vires); if
they do not, they are termed "beyond power" (or, in Latin, ultra vires). For example, a
students' union may be prohibited as an organization from engaging in activities not
concerning students; if the union becomes involved in non-student activities, these activities
are considered to be ultra vires of the union's charter, and nobody would be compelled by the
charter to follow them. An example from the constitutional law of sovereign states would be
a provincial parliament in a federal state trying to legislate in an area that the constitution
allocates exclusively to the federal parliament, such as ratifying a treaty. Action that appears
to be beyond power may be judicially reviewed and, if found to be beyond power, must
cease. Legislation that is found to be beyond power will be "invalid" and of no force; this
applies to primary legislation, requiring constitutional authorization, and secondary
legislation, ordinarily requiring statutory authorization. In this context, "within power", intra
vires, "authorized" and "valid" have the same meaning; as do "beyond power", ultra vires,
"not authorized" and "invalid".

In most but not all modern states the constitution has supremacy over ordinary statutory law
(see Uncodified constitution below); in such states when an official act is unconstitutional,
i.e. it is not a power granted to the government by the constitution, that act is null and void,
and the nullification is ab initio, that is, from inception, not from the date of the finding. It
was never "law", even though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision, it might have
been adopted according to the procedures for adopting legislation. Sometimes the problem is
not that a statute is unconstitutional, but the application of it is, on a particular occasion, and a
9
court may decide that while there are ways it could be applied that are constitutional, that
instance was not allowed or legitimate. In such a case, only the application may be ruled
unconstitutional. Historically, the remedy for such violations have been petitions for common
law writs, such as quo warranto.

After tribal people first began to live in cities and establish nations, many of these functioned
according to unwritten customs, while some developed autocratic, even tyrannical monarchs,
who ruled by decree, or mere personal whim. Such rule led some thinkers to take the position
that what mattered was not the design of governmental institutions and operations, as much
as the character of the rulers. This view can be seen in Plato, who called for rule by
"philosopher-kings."[46] Later writers, such as Aristotle, Cicero and Plutarch, would examine
designs for government from a legal and historical standpoint.

What is Constitutional Government?

Almost all nation-states have in common that they have a constitution. Only eight of the 192
countries listed by the UN did not have a basic document that could be considered as a
constitution. Constitutions are apparently an important part of any political system across the
world. This observation is further reinforced if one takes into account that constitutions had
emerged already in the eighteenth century. Yet, the study of constitutions as part of political
science (and also of Law) faded away in the post-war era and only became the subject of
investigation again in the past decade. Two reasons can be given for this renewed attention:
• Since the late 1980s, around 45 per cent of all constitutions were either conceived and adopted
or rigorously changed; • In the same period, institutionalism regained its status as a valuable
and viable approach to the study of how government works, namely as a result of the existing
rules of the political game (see Structures of Government).
The first reason is not only due to the worldwide change in regimes, such as in the Communist
World and the Third World, but also a consequence of a widely felt need to reconsider existing
systems of governance. So new, or drastically renewed constitutions also emerged in Western
Europe (e.g. The Netherlands and Belgium) or were heavily disputed (e.g. Canada, Italy, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom). Arguably, constitutions are not only a widely spread
phenomenon, but also considered as an important "epiphenomenon," as regards the direction
and organization of the nation’s polity, i.e. the organisation and role of government.
The second reason is mainly due to the growing dissatisfaction with the existing approaches
within post-war political science. The focus of attention had slowly shifted from studying the

10
(formal) rules of the political game towards structural functionalism in which the political
system was treated as a part of a larger whole, on the one hand; and towards the behaviour of
political actors as such (e.g. parties, interest groups, governments, bureaucracies, etc.), on the
other. These approaches are considered as too limited or even as biased with respect to
explaining how and why government acts or, equally interesting, does not act.
In conclusion, students of politics and government are increasingly interested both empirically
and theoretically in the basic set of rules, or institutions, that both limit the powers of
government and protects the individual liberty of the citizen within a country. In addition,
political scientists are employing institutions as analytical tools to understand better the
working of governments and its policy-making capacities.
Before elaborating on the concept of constitutional government and describing its comparative
features for possible classification, it is helpful to dwell upon the origins of "constitutionalism"
in the literature; a broad and a narrow meaning is assigned to the study and interpretation of
constitutions. Paul Heywood defines constitutionalism in the broad sense as: "a set of political
values and aspirations that reflect the desire to protect liberty by internal and external checks
on government power."
Taken in this sense, a constitution can be viewed as the core description of a political system,
the relations between state and society, on the one hand, and establishing the relations between
office holders within the government system, on the other. Such a description relates norms
and values to activities of government and sets constraints to governmental actions. Examples
of the first (values and activities) are constitutional chapters (or: preambles) in which, often,
ideology forms a basic point of departure (as has been the case in many communist and some
socialist constitutions), or where social development and public welfare is designed to be a
concern of the "state" (e.g. in Germany, the Netherlands, Paraguay and Kenya). Examples of
constitutional constraints are manifold and multifarious: they range from religious or ethnic
safeguards to a special role for the Head of State, or the military, to preserve the nation (as in
South Africa, Turkey and Indonesia).
Generally speaking, the purpose of a constitution and the related actions of government are:
• to embody the nation by empowering the state;
• to establish unifying norms and values and develop shared goals for society (ideology);
• to give public officials special (selective) powers, which are legitimized (institutional
autonomy) and
• to limit these special powers by protecting freedom for (groups of) individuals (individual
autonomy).

11
According to Heywood, this broad interpretation of constitutionalism almost fluently spills
over in its more narrow sense, namely: "constitutionalism is said to exist if and when
government institutions and related political processes are effectively constrained by
constitutional rules".
The narrow meaning of constitutionalism can be considered as a more legalistic and negative
form. Instead of referring to values and goals, the emphasis is clearly more conservative. This
version focuses more on the rules per se and whether or not they are effective in the sense of
means-end relationship (assessing whether or not a specific rule is indeed conducive to its
desired outcome). For example is the Judiciary indeed independent, if appointed by the Head
of State? Or can they function independently if the constitution prescribes that judges are to
obey the law only, which implies upholding specific values (like religion, ideology or the
state)? The "narrow" approach should however not be dismissed too light heartedly: it enables
the researcher to develop the "power map" of a political system and to analyze its political
organization comparatively on an empirical basis.
These points were already in the mind of the pre- (Second World) war political scientists. A
famous exponent was Lord Bryce, who compared the constitutions of (the then existing)
democracies and deduced from this investigation the actual working of those democratic
systems.
However, as the 1930s proved, the institutional design did not prevent systems from turning
into authoritarianism (as in Germany and Italy) nor from establishing anything but personal
freedom and protection of liberty (as in the USSR). This led to the demise and devaluation of
the study of constitutional government in the post-war period and should be a caveat in studying
and assessing constitutional development at present.
Modern constitutionalism therefore ought to be discussed both in the broader sense and in its
narrower meaning. Point of departure is then the framework of reference it represents for a
society at large and the institutionalization of public authority in the form of a political regime,
a system of political rule by government. This implies that regime analysis is basically the
analysis of constitutional government, since it asks persistent questions on how power in
societies is distributed, and with what consequence for the public welfare. For example,
Polybius and Aristotle developed typologies of political regimes on the basis of comparative
evidence, in order to answer questions such as: "who rules" and "who benefits". The purpose
of the analysis was to evaluate forms of government on normative grounds, hoping to identify
the ideal constitution serving the community at large.

12
According to many political scientists, this type of regime-analysis lays the foundation for
further ideas developed during the European era of "absolutism," by philosophers such as
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean Bodin (1530-1596). In their view, the Aristotelian
questions could only be answered by vesting the sovereignty into one indivisible principle (the
monarch), who was bound only by a higher power (God) and its rules (e.g. the Bible). Whatever
one may think of these ideas, the importance is that concepts like "sovereignty" and "authority"
were introduced. The concepts pointed at a (necessary) relationship between the "state" and its
jurisdiction over the inhabitants of a territory.
The writings of Locke (1632-1704), Montesquieu (1689-1775), and Madison (1751-1836),
although developing alternative models, mark the beginning of what is still considered as the
contemporary study of constitutional government. Locke argued that sovereignty resided with
the people (i.e. inhabitants), and proposed therefore that governmental powers should be
limited mainly to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. Montesquieu advocated
a constitutional system of "check and balances" by means of the (well-known) "separation of
powers," between the executive, legislative and judiciary institutions. The ideas of Locke and
Montesquieu lay the foundation for the US constitution (1787), the French Revolution (1789),
and were gradually dispersed first across Europe and later elsewhere in the form of liberal
democratic government.
Many of these ideas indeed materialized in most of the constitutions that were developed in the
aftermath of the Napoleonic era, which brought constitutional government in Europe, and both
the Americas, in particular. With it, one can also witness a growing level of variety as to what
appeared to be considered as the "ideal" constitution. Republicanism superseded monarchism,
parliamentarism was distinguished from presidentialism, and unitary systems became
accompanied by federal ones.
In conclusion, the emerging systems of political rule that developed over time had a number of
identical features that originated from a debate among political philosophers on the relationship
between State and Society and the role and position of government. On the other hand, the
constitutional choices made and the ordering of these features, varied considerably, and led to
a bewildering variety of constitutions across the world.
Constitutional Features Across the World
A constitution, or if it does not concern a separate document, the "basic laws" of a nation-state,
always refer to its/their supreme organic law. It is thus the law(s) from which all other laws are
derived and it prescribes how a nation is governed and by what type of office holders, as well
as the way these political actors can and must interact. Although most, if not all nation-states

13
have a constitution or basic laws, the supremacy of the basic law is not only a matter of whether
or not it exists, but also of how and by whom the law is upheld, and in what way and to what
extent these basic laws can be changed and adjusted in order to make them work effectively in
establishing statesociety relations.
Two concepts are used to denote this phenomenon: the "Rule of Law" emanating from the
constitution, and the development of "conventions". The Rule of Law is the idea that the law
should "rule" and as such, establishes a framework by which the conduct and behaviour of
political actors can be assessed. This principle applies equally to all members of society, be it
private citizens, members of the civil and military service, but foremost, to political office
holders (i.e. members of the executive and legislative).
The Rule of Law, or "Rechtsstaat" is thus an expression of the supremacy of the (basic) law,
but is also subject to the scrutiny of the Judiciary and requires a liberal and democratic culture
to survive as well as to be effective. This is often not the case, or only temporarily the case (e.g.
military coups d’état or takeovers of government). If there is such a culture, then the second
(informal) institution of constitutional government: the emergence of conventions, is not only
important, but also relevant, in order to make constitutional government work in a stable
fashion.
Constitutional conventions are the rules of practice, which are considered as "correct" (how
things should be done) and as "practical" (how procedures will be workable). These non-legal
rules are, of course, to some extent flexible and dependent on the power relations in "political
society". These exist in all types of constitutional government and guide the conduct and
behaviour where formal rules are either unclear or incomplete (in particular in so-called "rigid"
constitutions or basic laws). Conventions play a particularly important role if there is not a
constitution, or a comparable codified document is not available. In essence, these informal
rules modify the effect of the different powers laid down in law and define usually by means
of the Judiciary the room to manoeuver of the ruling elites (this is, e.g., visible in the working
of the "common law" in many Anglo-Saxon countries, and in the interpretations of "High",
"Supreme", or "Constitutional" Courts).
Both the "Rule of Law" and "Constitutional conventions" are important elements for
considering the actual working of constitutional government in reality and should always be
taken into account whilst studying modern government, in particular as regards assessing the
degree of its constitutionality in theory and practice.

14
Classifying Constitutional Government
Classifying constitutional government is not an easy task if one departs from the set of given
rules. Some constitutions have been in existence for 200 years, others were only adopted a
decade ago, and often follow existing patterns.
A first indicator for classification is the question of whether or not government is based on a
written or codified document that directs its behaviour. Only a few nation-states have no
codified set of basic laws that function as a constitution. Research conducted by Derbyshire
and Derbyshire shows eight cases without such a document: Bhutan, Israel, New Zealand,
Oman, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Vatican City. Yet, even in these
cases one should bear in mind that there is a minimal system of "checks and balances" and
some kind of a "bill of rights," defining the status and "room to manoeuver" of government, on
the one hand, and circumscribing protection of the liberties of the individual, on the other.
The exceptions to the rule concern firstly the sacred laws of the Koran and restricting the
kingdom of Bhutan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Bible directs the role of the Pope in the
Vatican City. In addition, certain traditions have been institutionalized and work as conventions
regarding decision making and, for instance, the succession of the Principal. The case of Israel
is in part the same, since the Torah remains a source of political authority.
Yet, at the same time, Israel is different in that this nation has developed a set of rules that can
be considered as basic laws. The same applies to New Zealand that has adopted a political
system that is similar to that of the United Kingdom, where the development of Common Law
shapes its practice. In the United Kingdom, in the course of time, a series of "Acts of
Parliament" were adopted, from as early as 1688 (the "Glorious Revolution"), in which the
Rights of Parliament and of the citizens is protected. (the supremacy of parliament vis-á-vis
government and the Crown, limiting the influence of the House of Lords, and the enlargement
of political representation). Hence, it is misleading to classify constitutional government solely
on the basis of the availability of a written constitution. All constitutions or sets of basic laws
are in fact a blend of written and unwritten (conventions), although the mix of the two varies
considerably across the nations.
Germany and France, for example, can be considered as having an extensive and detailed set
of rules directing the working of government and the powers of the state. Conversely, the
constitutions of the Netherlands and the US are short documents (ca. 10 000 words), in which
broad principles of civil and political rights and a loose framework of government are laid
down.

15
The main institutions of government, as in the relationship between the executive and the
legislature, have evolved over time. For example, the role and position of the Dutch Head of
State (the King or Queen) was fixed in 1848, by which a minister has the ability to exercise the
Royal Prerogative, however still being fully responsible to parliament. This latter constraint is
not actually mentioned in the Dutch constitution and has developed over time through a number
of political clashes and is still based on convention.
It appears more fruitful therefore to ask whether or not a nation-state has a codified set of basic
laws, which shape the state format (e.g. federalized or not), the organization of the executive
(e.g. parliamentary or not), the independence of the judiciary and the existing civil and political
liberties. Before treating these properties of constitutional government we shall devote some
attention to other general features of constitutions and their development.
Any government can be of two type, either constitutional or non-constitutional. It is an
alarming question of today because of the rights of the peoples of the world. Before moving
forward to discuss the differences between constitutional and non constitutional, it is important
to understand both type of government one by one.
Constitutional Government

Almost every country has its fundamental principles to run the state or
government. These fundamental principles are known as constitution of that country. So a
constitutional government is that government, which is elected by public of the country through
an election process established by the constitution of the respective country. It means that
power and authorities are up to the directions provided by constitution, which will be surely
limited. Now the head of the state or head of the government cannot misuse the power that
have been granted to them otherwise he will be answerable to the public or law. After this the
rights of the citizens of the country gets secured.

16
 Non-Constitutional Government

Non-constitutional government is completely opposite to the

constitutional government. This kind of government is a perfect type of monarchic, autocratic
or dictatorial government. Ruler of the country has unlimited powers and authorities and he is
not answerable to anyone. Public cannot removed this government easily if he want to do so.
Absolute monarchical government or kingdom and dictatorship are two kinds of non-
constitutional government. In both kinds of non-constitutional government, ruler remain in
power until he wants.

Key Differences

 Constitutional government follows the fundamental principles or any rule book of the country while
non-constitutional does not follow any kind of rule book or constitution.
 There is a complete government designation hierarchy in the constitutional government and all are
assumed to perform their duties according to oath. In non-constitutional government a single person
or small group of people ruled on the whole country.
 Making economical or foreign relationship with constitutional government and non-constitutional
type of kingdom or monarchal government reliable. But making relationship with dictatorial type of
non-constitutional government is harmful as making relationship with these types of government are
often banned by United Nations or other International Organizations.
 Powers and authorities of constitutional government are limited while non-constitutional government
enjoys unlimited powers.
 Constitutional government has specific tenure or limit to rule and it is compulsory to be re-elect again
for another term. While there is no ruling limit in case of non-constitutional government. It can remain
in power as it wants.
 United States, Austria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, etc. are examples of constitutional government.
Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Swaziland and Vatican City are examples of non-constitutional
government or absolute monarchical government.

17
Shortly after the establishment of the Articles of Confederation, a variance in sentiment in regards to
varying the legislative model set forth in its contents. Both citizens of the United States of America,
as well as various political figureheads, began to develop their own personal ideology in the spectrum
of the gubernatorial model that was put in place.

On one hand, many of the smaller states of the Union enjoyed their respective sovereign existence to
which they felt they were entitled. Regardless of their size and population, they were able to maintain
an equal amount of legislative power as their larger counterparts. In contrast to the prior monarchical
model under which the colonists lived, many citizens of the United States felt that a central
government that was subservient to the individual states was preferable to even the mere possibility
of the existence of a totalitarian government. Furthermore, the freedom to exist without taxation
allowed them to begin to cultivate themselves on a grander level; unaffected by any perceived whim
or matter that existed beyond their respective borders.

On the other hand, political groups such as the Federalists vehemently opposed the role, and
respective legislative power, allowed to the central Government. They maintained that the lack of
governmental jurisdiction coupled with an inaccessibility to successfully pass legislation on a
national level rendered an abuse of power on the part of the individual states, who at the time were
acting as sovereign entities.

In addition, the central government’s inability to enforce taxation – albeit a presumably just and fair
taxation process – was propelling the financial state of the United States of America into insolvency.
Due in part to the disallowing enforcement of taxation imparted on the central Government, which
existed in tandem with a myriad of expenses incurred from national programs such as the upkeep of
a military and a postal service, the central Government was forced to print money devoid of
substantial financial backing in order to satisfy its debts.

As the central Government began to print money wildly, the value of currency recessed, which
prompted monetary inflation on a national scale. Larger states, which oftentimes were comprised of
larger populations, were not entitled to additional funding towards the maintenance within their
respective State borders. The State of New York was only allowed the precise amount of funding that
was allowed to the State of Rhode Island. This occurred isolated of the fact that not only the
population of the State of New York, but also its land area, dwarfed that of Rhode Island.

18
The existence of the United States of America was quickly reaching a critical mass. The onset of
financial insolvency had spawned various citizen-led rebellions, in addition to a refusal on the part
of foreign nations to engage in trade relations with the thirteen states of the Union. Although a novel
endeavor upon its inception, a majority of people maintained that the Articles of Confederation and
its proposed system of government had proven to be unstable and dysfunctional, which unavoidably
thrust the citizens of the United States of America towards a Constitutional governmental model.

Constitutional government is defined by the existence of a constitution—which may be a legal

instrument or merely a set of fixed norms or principles generally accepted as the fundamental law of
the polity—that effectively controls the exercise of political power. The essence of constitutionalism
is the control of power by its distribution among several state organs or offices in such a way that
they are each subjected to reciprocal controls and forced to cooperate in formulating the will of the
state. Although constitutional government in this sense flourished in England and in some other
historical systems for a considerable period, it is only recently that it has been associated with forms
of mass participation in politics. In England, for example, constitutional government was not
harnessed to political democracy until after the Reform Act of 1832 and subsequent 19th-century
extensions of the suffrage. In the contemporary world, however, constitutional governments are also
generally democracies, and in most cases they are referred to as constitutional democracies or
constitutional-democratic systems.

The contemporary political systems that combine constitutionalism and democracy share a common
basis in the primacy they accord to the will of the majority of the people as expressed in free elections.
In all such systems, political parties are key institutions, for they are the agencies by which majority
opinion in a modern mass electorate is mobilized and expressed. Indeed, the history of the political
party in its modern form is coincidental with the development of contemporary constitutional-
democratic systems. In each case, the transition from the older forms of constitutionalism to modern
constitutional democracy was accompanied by the institutionalization of parties and the development
of techniques of party competition. The essential functions of political parties in a constitutional
democracy are the integration of a multitude of interests, beliefs, and values into one or more
programs or proposals for change and the nomination of party members for elective office in the
government. In both functions, the party serves as a link between the rulers and the ruled: in the first
case by allowing the electorate to register an opinion on policy and in the second by giving the people
a chance to choose their rulers. Of course, the centralized, autocratically directed, and ideologically
orthodox one-party systems of totalitarian regimes perform neither of these functions.

19
The two major types of constitutional democracy in the modern world are exemplified by the United
States and Great Britain. The United States is the leading example of the presidential system of
constitutional democracy; Britain, although its system is sometimes referred to as a cabinet system in
recognition of the role of the cabinet in the government, is the classic example of the parliamentary
system. The U.S. presidential system is based on the doctrine of separation of powers and
distinguishes sharply between the personnel of the legislature and the executive; the British
parliamentary system provides for the integration or fusion of legislature and executive. In the U.S.
system the separation of legislature and executive is reinforced by their separate election and by the
doctrine of checks and balances that provides constitutional support for routine disagreements
between the branches; in the British system the integration of legislature and executive is reinforced
by the necessity for their constant agreement, or for a condition of “confidence” between the two, if
the normal processes of government are to continue. In the U.S. system reciprocal controls are
provided by such devices as the presidential veto of legislation (which may be overridden by a two-
thirds majority in Congress), the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties and confirming executive
nominations, congressional appropriation of funds and the exclusive ability to declare war, and
judicial review of legislation; in the British system the major control device is the vote of “no
confidence” or the rejection of legislation that is considered vital.

A third type of constitutional democracy is the hybrid presidential-parliamentary system, exemplified

by the government of France. In such systems there is both a directly elected president with
substantial executive powers and a presidentially appointed prime minister, who must retain majority
support in the legislature. If the president’s party or coalition also controls a legislative majority, the
prime minister is generally a secondary figure, responsible for the day-to-day running of the
government. However, the office of prime minister becomes more important when one party or
coalition controls the presidency and a rival party or coalition retains majority support in the
legislature. During such periods the president generally appoints the leader of the legislative majority
as prime minister.

Contemporary Levels of Government

Most national societies have passed through a stage in their social and political development, usually
referred to as feudalism, in which a weak and ineffectively organized national government competes
for territorial jurisdiction with local power holders. In medieval England and France, for example,
the crown was perennially threatened by the power of the feudal nobles, and a protracted struggle
was necessary before the national domain was subjected to full royal control. Elsewhere, innumerable
20
societies continued to experience this kind of feudal conflict between local magnates and the central
government well into the modern era. The warlords of 19th- and 20th-century China, for example,
were just as much the products of feudal society as the warring barons of 13th-century England and
presented the same kind of challenge to the central government’s claim to exercise sovereign
jurisdiction over the national territory. By the 1970s, feudalism was almost extinct. The social
patterns that had formerly supported the power of local landowners were rapidly disappearing, and
central governments had generally acquired a near monopoly of communications and military
technology, enabling them to project their power into areas once controlled by local rulers.

In nearly all national political systems, central governments are better equipped than ever before to
exercise effective jurisdiction over their territories. In much of the developing world, nationalist
political movements and a variety of modern economic forces have swept away the traditional
structures of local government, and the quasi-autonomous governments of village and tribe and
province have been replaced by centrally directed systems of subnational administration. Even in the
heavily industrialized states of the modern world, there has been an accelerating tendency toward
greater centralization of power at the national level. In the United States, for example, the structure
of relationships among the governments at the national, state, and local levels has changed in a
number of ways to add to the power of the federal government in Washington. Even though the
system of national grants-in-aid appears to have been designed as a means of decentralizing
administration, the effect has been decidedly centralist, for the conditional character of the grants has
allowed the federal government to exercise influence on state policies in fields that were once
invulnerable to national intevention.

National Government

The nation-state is the dominant type of political system in the contemporary world, and nationalism,
or the creed that centres the supreme loyalty of the people upon the nation-state, is the dominating
force in international politics. The national ideal triumphed as a result of the wars of the 19th and
20th centuries. The Napoleonic Wars, which spread the doctrines of the French Revolution, unleashed
nationalism as a force in Europe and led to the Risorgimento in Italy and the emergence of Bismarck’s
Germany. The two world wars of the 20th century carried the principles of national self-determination
and liberal democracy around the world and gave birth to the independence movements that resulted
in the foundation of new states in eastern Europe in 1919 and the emergence from colonial status of
countries in Asia and Africa after 1945. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself
completed this process of moving from multinational empires to truly sovereign national states.
21
All the major forces of world politics—e.g., war, the development of national economies, and the
demand for social services—have reinforced the national state as the primary focus of people’s
loyalties. Wars have played the major part in strengthening national governments and weakening
political regionalism and localism. The attachments that people have to subnational political
communities are loosened when they must depend for their security on the national power. Even in
the new age of total war—which few countries are capable of waging and even fewer of surviving—
people look for their security to national governments rather than to international organizations. In
nearly all contemporary states, the national budget is dominated by expenditures for defense, the
military employs the largest fraction of the work force, and questions of national security pervade the
discussion of politics.

One of the lessons of the last century was that national sovereignty continues to be the most important
obstacle not only to the emergence of new forms of supranational government but to effective
international cooperation as well. Almost everywhere, attempts to achieve federation and other forms
of multinational communication have foundered on the rocks of nationalism. The collapse of the
Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Federation of Malaya, for example, were paralleled
by the seeming ineffectiveness of the Organization of American States and the Arab League. On
another level was the collapse of the Warsaw Pact when the countries of eastern Europe reclaimed
their sovereignty in the late 1980s after decades of domination by the Soviet Union. In western
Europe, however, countries joined together to form the supranational European Communities, which
ultimately were succeeded by the European Union (EU) and expanded to encompass the bulk of the
European continent. The countries of the EU are united not only by a long history and a common
cultural inheritance but also by the expectation of mutual economic advantage. Even in this case,
though, nationalism has proved to be an obstacle to the most ambitious goals of unification, which
would severely limit national sovereignty in some spheres.

At the international level, anarchy is the principal form of contemporary rule, for the nation-state’s
freedom of action is limited only by its power. While the state’s freedom of action may not be directly
threatened, the effectiveness of the state’s action in the economic realm is increasingly being called
into question. The development of national industries in the 19th and early 20th centuries played a
major part in strengthening national as against regional and local political entities, but the scale of
economic activity has now outgrown national markets. Industrial combines and commercial
groupings have emerged that cross national frontiers and require international markets. This tight

22
integration of the world economy has limited the effectiveness of some traditional instruments used
to influence national trends in capitalist economies.

It is increasingly clear that some aspects of traditional sovereignty may be affected by serious efforts
to confront some issues that act on the entire international system. National frontiers can no longer
be adequately defended in an era of intercontinental ballistic missiles, especially with the rapid
diffusion of the technology required for delivery systems as well as for nuclear weapons themselves.
Action in this area is, by definition, an attempt to shape the national security policy of states,
something very near the core of a state’s sovereignty. Concern over environmental matters could lead
to more restrictive regimes than any arms-control provisions, ultimately shaping the way in which
countries evolve economically. Destruction of major ecosystems, wasteful use of energy, and
industrialization based on the use of fossil fuels are all national policies with international
repercussions. As technology empowers more countries to directly affect the state of the planet as
well as other countries, there are increasing incentives to limit the domestic policy choices of all
countries.

Governmental Constitution

Most commonly, the term constitution refers to a set of rules and principles that define the nature and
extent of government. Most constitutions seek to regulate the relationship between institutions of the
state, in a basic sense the relationship between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, but also
the relationship of institutions within those branches. For example, executive branches can be divided
into a head of government, government departments/ministries, executive agencies and a civil
service/administration. Most constitutions also attempt to define the relationship between individuals
and the state, and to establish the broad rights of individual citizens. It is thus the most basic law of a
territory from which all the other laws and rules are hierarchically derived; in some territories it is in
fact called "Basic Law".

Constitutional Courts

Constitutions are often, but by no means always, protected by a legal body whose job it is to interpret
those constitutions and, where applicable, declare void executive and legislative acts which infringe
the constitution. In some countries, such as Germany, this function is carried out by a dedicated
constitutional court which performs this (and only this) function. In other countries, such as Ireland,
the ordinary courts may perform this function in addition to their other responsibilities. While

23
elsewhere, like in the United Kingdom, the concept of declaring an act to be unconstitutional does
not exist.

A constitutional violation is an action or legislative act that is judged by a constitutional court to be

contrary to the constitution, that is, unconstitutional. An example of constitutional violation by the
executive could be a public office holder who acts outside the powers granted to that office by a
constitution. An example of constitutional violation by the legislature is an attempt to pass a law that
would contradict the constitution, without first going through the proper constitutional amendment
process.

Some countries, mainly those with uncodified constitutions, have no such courts at all. For example,
the United Kingdom has traditionally operated under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty under
which the laws passed by United Kingdom Parliament could not be questioned by the courts.

24
 CONCLUSION

The constitution is an integral part of a country’s administration in today’s world.It is the

ultimate source of all the laws prevailing in a country. Almost all the countries now-a-days
have their own constitution. The core element of constitutional government is, of course, the
existence of a "Rule-ofLaw" or set of “basic laws” that binds both public office-holders and all
members of a society (i.e. citizens) within a given territory. Presently most states avail of a
constitution, which directs the organization of the state, the relations between the public offices
within the state, as well the human and civil rights of the individual. Constitutional
governments, however, do not perform in the same manner everywhere.

In this contribution, the following aspects are discussed comparatively: (a) The relationship
between constitutional features and the existing state format; (b) The key institutions which
define the type of government and the relationship between the executive and legislative; (c)
The existing systems of "checks and balances" between governments, assemblies and Heads
of State, as well as the role of the judiciary; (d) The actual performance of constitutional
governance in terms of human and civil rights.

25