Evaluate to the extent the UK should reform its constitution

Question 1

Codification

In favour of reforming the Constitution

Answer 1

As the constitution is unwritten, people are unaware of rights and how government is run. This can lead to voter apathy and possibly an abuse of power, especially with large majorities (Blair in 1997), because the PM and Govt gains too much unchecked power that it is considered an elected dictatorship.

Compared to the USA’s Constitution:
- Codified - written document in the Bill of Rights (1787).
- Transparent and easy to understand govt powers which also safeguards the rights of citizens.
- If there is a potential breaking of a constitutional right - can be taken to the Supreme Court - judges interpret the constitution and make a decision.

Question 2

Codification

Against reforming the constitution

Answer 2

• Organic and flexible - evolves with time compared to the USA (difficult to adjust). For example, the UK Govt could adapt necessary legislation during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to stop large groups meeting, such as at the Sarah Everard Vigil.
• The gradual approach allows for careful consideration of specific issues, minimising the risk of unintended consequences or hasty decisions.
• Can pass laws via acts of parliament when required while the USA requires a majority in both Houses in Senates and Representatives. For example, the USA passed only 28 amendments in 200 years. It struggled to introduce anti-terrorism laws after 9/11 and changes to gun laws (restricts the constitutional right to bear arms). This may become an issue with new laws like the proposed Illegal Migration Bill by Suella Braverman.

Question 3

Separation of Powers - UK

For and against reform

Answer 3

Currently fusion of power:
+ Judiciary separate since 2005.
+ Legislative (House of Lords and the House of Commons).
+ Draws the executive (govt) drawn from the HOC.

Issues:
- The legislative is the only branch directly voted for, despite the Lords Chamber being unelected (compromised to allow only 92 hereditary peers).
- Because the branches are overlapped, this means that there isn’t enough scrutinity on the govt - lacks checks and balances.
- For example, when PMs gain a majority there is limited methods to stop their decisions and it can lead to an elected dictatorship (e.g Tony Blair’s majority in 1997 allowed him to pass Devolution Acts and enter Iraq War with the USA)

Question 4

Separation of Power - USA

For and against (comparison)

Answer 4

• Clear separation of powers - no members of the legislative branch sits in the executive state and neither more powerful than the other branch. So, all must work together to prevent tension.
• ‘Checks and Balances’ - the people that make up the different institutions are separated, rather than the powers.

Issues:
- All processes would require negotiations and compromises between the three branches - processes are too slow and confusing, lead to voter apathy and increased problem of political ignorance.

Question 5

Protection of Rights

For and Against

Answer 5

• Human Rights Act 1998 law brings the UK constitution in line with the rest of Europe, provides entrenchment of laws, binding on all public bodies.
• Changing laws is also easier, unlike the USA where it is more difficult (USA struggled to deal effectively with 9/11 and COVID-19).

However, affected by Brexit:
- Even while part of the EU, HR Act isn’t binding on Govt - overridden through parliamentary sovereignty.
- No longer protected by the European Court HR until Brexit (attempts to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda in 2023). Doesn’t need to abide by the ECHR and can choose to leave.
- No entrenchment of rights which could lead to more erosion of rights more easily as all the govt needs to do is pass a simple act and gain a majority which it may already have in the HOC.
- In comparison, the USA’s Bill of Rights protects all US citizens from torture and promotes free speech - clearly effective as it held for over 200 years and makes it easier to challenge the Con through SC.

Question 6

Limiting head of state’s powers - UK

For and Against Reform

Answer 6

Pro currently:
+ Fixed Term Act = govt cannot randomly call an election, limited to five years.
+ Monarchy power gradually declined, replaced by elected bodies naturally (no political influence).
+ The PM can deal with crises quickly and effectively with no obstruction.

Con currently:
- The monarch is unelected which differs from the values of a liberal Democracy. Also, PMs gains the monarch’s perogative powers (e.g declaring war) which they can exercise whenever they wish.
- ISSUE = an overpowerful prime minister with a large majority could threaten the rights of the people (esp upon Brexit) and the position of minorities in the country, as well as public opinion and influence - elected dictatorship.

Question 7

Limiting heads of state’s powers - USA

For and against reform example

Answer 7

• Shorter time in power (voting every four years) and they can only serve two terms = more chances to vote.
• Weak in terms of political strength within the country, constrained the House of Representatives and the House of Senates - President must gain a majority form both Houses to pass amendments.
• Enables checks and balances and can even take the President to court (impeachment).

Question 8

Federalism - UK

Answer 8

• The UK is quasi federal - power distributed through devolutions - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
• England (Biggest population) - doesnt have its own parliament
• Sovereignty lies with UK parliament - a constantly changing body and so UK govt can take the power back anytime it wants
• Distriubution of power not set in stone - can easily be changed

Question 9

Federalism - USA

For and against reform

Answer 9

For:
- Each state has its own govt - decisions lie with the governor.
- Power distributed equally and the govt is closer to the people which is vital in a huge country like America.
- Encourages pluralism - more opportunities to vote and voice opinions
- Prevents tyranny - if the national govt is compromised the state govts can still function independently.

Against:
- Low local election turnouts - most know very little about their local elections and don’t put in any effort to vote or voice their opinions even though these local elections hold a great amount of power
- Creation of 50 different state policies instead of one national policy which can create confusion.