You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The question of whether the UK should adopt a codified constitution is one of the most frequently examined debates in A-Level Politics. It requires you to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the current uncodified system against the potential benefits and risks of codification. This lesson provides the arguments, evidence, and case studies needed to construct a balanced and well-supported answer.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Codified constitution | A constitution contained in a single authoritative document, with higher legal status than ordinary legislation |
| Uncodified constitution | A constitution drawn from multiple sources, with no single document of higher legal status |
| Entrenched | Protected by special amendment procedures (e.g. a supermajority, a referendum) |
| Unentrenched | Can be changed by ordinary legislation |
| Judiciable | Subject to interpretation and enforcement by the courts |
The UK is one of only three democracies in the world (alongside Israel and New Zealand) without a codified constitution. Its constitutional rules are spread across statutes, common law, conventions, authoritative works, and (formerly) EU law. There is no single document with higher legal status, and Parliament can change any constitutional rule with a simple majority.
A codified constitution would set out the fundamental rules of governance in a single, clear document. Currently, the constitution is scattered across hundreds of statutes, conventions, and judicial decisions. A codified document would make the constitution more accessible to citizens, improving public understanding of their rights and the limits of government power.
Case Study: The USA. The US Constitution (1787) is a concise document that is widely taught and understood. Most Americans can identify key principles (freedom of speech, the right to bear arms) because they are clearly set out. In contrast, few UK citizens could identify the constitutional basis for their rights or the limits of government power.
A codified constitution with entrenchment would place clear legal limits on government power. The government could not change fundamental rules (such as the protection of rights or the structure of devolution) through ordinary legislation. This would protect against the elective dictatorship identified by Lord Hailsham — a government with a large majority pushing through radical constitutional change.
Example: The Johnson government's Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act with a simple majority. Under a codified system, such a fundamental change might require a supermajority or a referendum.
A codified Bill of Rights — entrenched and enforceable by the courts — would provide stronger protection of individual rights than the current Human Rights Act. Under the HRA, courts can only issue declarations of incompatibility; they cannot strike down Acts of Parliament. A codified constitution could empower the courts to invalidate legislation that violates fundamental rights, as the US Supreme Court does.
A codified constitution would provide a clear legal framework for resolving disputes between institutions (e.g. between Westminster and the devolved governments, or between Parliament and the Executive). Currently, such disputes are resolved by political negotiation, convention, or ad hoc judicial review, which can be unpredictable.
The UK's uncodified system has evolved over centuries through historical accident and political compromise. A codified constitution would provide an opportunity for a rational, democratic redesign of the UK's governance arrangements, addressing long-standing issues such as House of Lords reform, the West Lothian Question, and the protection of local government.
The UK's uncodified constitution is highly flexible — it can adapt quickly to changing circumstances without the need for formal amendment procedures. This has allowed the UK to respond to crises and changing needs (e.g. devolution, the Human Rights Act, and Brexit) relatively smoothly.
Counter-example: The US Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend (requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures). The Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, continues to shape US gun policy despite dramatic changes in technology and society.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.