Muhammad Salman Mushtaq

LLB first year

Lecture 2
Public law assignment

The aforementioned proposition basically asks us to compare and contrast both kinds
of constitution and then analyse which of the two is better in today’s world.

Constitutions are foundation for government in virtually every society around the
world. They simultaneously create, empower, and limit the institutions that govern
society. It sets out basic rules for how the country is governed. There are two types of
constitutions, the written or codified constitution and the unwritten or uncodified
constitution.

The birth of a constitutional text may be stimulated by a variety of different factors

such as when a colony achieves independence or when a country splits into two
independent states. It can also take place following a global war, civil war or the end
of a political regime. The process of drafting the constitution is carried out by the
constituent assembly and the draft text is formally adopted as the country’s
constitution after it has been approved by the people in a referendum.

The United Kingdom is among the few countries that have not adopted a codified
constitution and have a unwritten constitution. In this kind of constitution most of the
significant constitutional rules are written down in acts of parliament and judgments
of the UK court. Moreover some constitutionally important rules are also in the form
of constitutional convention’s although they are not enforceable but are most written
down in official documents. In expression ‘unwritten constitution’ is often used but is
rather misleading, if taken literally. Certainly, it is true that the important
constitutional rules of the United Kingdom are not written down in one supreme,
codified legal document but almost all rules are written down somewhere. Most rules
are reasonably clear and well understood.

There are a number of reasons why the United Kingdom has avoided codification.
One of the main reasons is that the United Kingdom has been politically stable since
the idea of systematically codified constitution took root elsewhere in the eighteenth
century. Moreover the British government feared strife and many repressive laws were
enacted by parliament curtailing freedom of assembly and free speech. No comparable
process of constitution making ever took place in Britain; no single moment of
revolution in government occurred. Instead, a series of reforms designed to create
representative democracy gradually unfolded. Democracy came to Britain by
evolution rather than revolution.

British politicians like the extreme flexibility of the uncodified constitution as it

provides minimal constraints on their power. However there are some drawbacks to
uncodified constitution. There is no national law with a higher status than acts of
parliament. Moreover there is no formal or special process for amending the
constitutional system. The British constitution is characterised by extreme flexibility.
Fundamental changes can be achieved by acts of Parliament. This is a great advantage
of the UK system as it enables decisive changes to be achieved quickly however it can
lead to ill considered proposals. Furthermore the British constitution has become
rather unstable as a wide range of reforms were introduced, in a uncoordinated way.

In conclusion, it can be said that constitutional text may not match how the
constitutional system works in reality as it may not help understand a country’s
constitution, it is therefore necessary to look beyond the codified text to the system as
a whole.