UK Constitution - Politics Online

What is a constitution?

A constitution is a set of rules and agreements that defines how a state or a society is run. Every single country has a constitution, including dictatorships like North Korea.

A constitution sets out where sovereignty lies in a country and how power might be divided between the different institutions of that state. It places limits on the power of rulers and often has sections to guarantee the rights of individuals. In particular, constitutions often define the rights that citizens have under their government; these are known as civil liberties.

A constitution does not define precisely what should happen in any given society. It instead acts as a framework upon which a state can build laws and more complex governmental structures. Therefore, even issues which are very important (like how much tax to levy, defining criminal acts, etc.) are not constitutional since they are not part of this fundamental framework.

Constitutions vary greatly. However, there are several functions that are common to all constitutions:

They provide legitimacy to those in power. It gives legal status to the actions of the government.
They protect freedoms, by restraining the behaviour of those in office, and setting out the rights and responsibilities of government.
They encourage stability in government and society. They do this by introducing order and predictability into the way government runs.
They set out the primary goals and values of a state.
They distinguish the spheres of influence of distinct parts of government. This is particularly the case in a federal system where there can be multiple constitutions within a single country.
They can create a fresh start for governments, particularly after revolution or upheaval

What are the two main types of constitutions?

There are two main types of constitution:

Codified constitutions

In a codified Constitution, all its major parts are enclosed in a single document. These Constitutions usually are a revolutionary constitution; they are created as a fresh start for the governance of a country. The best example of a codified constitution is the Constitution of the United States of America (1787) which was created after declaring America’s independence from Great Britain. As of 2024,190 countries have codified constitutions – the oldest is the USA’s (1788) and the newest is Chile’s (2022)

Uncodified constitutions

In an uncodified constitution, the elements that make it up are not enclosed in a single document. An uncodified constitution draws on a wide range of sources. These constitutions usually are evolutionary constitutions; they have evolved organically over an extended period. The best example of an uncodified constitution is that of the UK. As of 2024, only six countries in the world have uncodified constitutions: Israel, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, San Marino & Saudi Arabia.

How are codified constitutions made up?
How a codified constitution is made up varies significantly from country to country. However, many constitutions follow a similar structure:

Preamble – An opening statement of principle and aims. The US Constitution preamble reads as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Organisational Section – Articles explaining the way government institutions (e.g. the legislature, executive and judiciary) will be organised and what their duties will be.
Bill of Rights – A statement of the fundamental rights of individuals.
Constitutional Amendments – The changes that have been made to the original constitution.

What are the different characteristics of constitutions?

Constitutions can be distinguished from each other in a number of ways. They can be:

Flexible or entrenched
Federal or unitary
Parliamentary or presidential
Monarchical or republican

Flexible vs entrenched

A flexible constitution can be changed easily. These types of constitutions are rare. They can be altered simply by enacting statute laws. This means that there is no fundamental law and constitutional laws are no different from ordinary laws and there is no formal process for changing the constitution. An entrenched constitution is difficult to change. A good example can be found in comparing the UK and UK constitutions.

The US constitution is entrenched. It contains many entrenched provisions. This means it is extremely difficult to change and amend. Since it was ratified in 1787, it has only been amended 27 times and two of these changes have been made about the same thing (prohibition). In the United States, constitutional sovereignty exists. This means that all power in the US flows from the US Constitution. The Framers (those who wrote the constitution) made it deliberately difficult to change. This was largely because they had just broken free of the tyrannical rule of Britain under George III and did not want the government to be able to amend the constitution and take too much power for themselves. The US Constitution can be amended in two ways:

A supermajority (2/3s) of both houses of the US Congress must vote to change the Constitution. It then must be ratified (agreed to) by 3/4s of all the state legislatures (parliaments).
A constitutional convention is called by 2/3s of state legislatures who can make as many amendments as they like. These amendments must then be approved by 3/4s of the states. In all of US History 27 amendments have been agreed, six have failed to be ratified and thousands have proposed but not agreed. In fact, as of 2019 only 0.22% of proposed constitutional amendments had ever been agreed.

By contrast, the UK constitution is remarkably easy to amend. In the UK, there is parliamentary sovereignty. This means that Parliament holds the ultimate power in the political system. Therefore, if a simple majority Parliament agree a new law to change the constitution, then it will be changed.

A flexible constitution is easily amendable

Constitutional flexibility means that they can be easily amended when there is a political appetite for this. This is because they have little or no special provisions for constitutional amendment as there is no fundamental law.

A flexible constitution enables necessary changes

A flexible constitution allows for effective and quick changes when there is a need for this. This can help to create stability within the constitution. An entrenched constitution that cannot change quickly may lead to difficult constitutional situations that can create political instability.

A flexible constitution keeps up with society

A flexible constitution can change and develop to keep up to date with societal changes. This is important for the success of any political system. Issues that were not significant in the 18th century, but now are, such as the right to privacy in the internet age, can be legislated on and have the same protection as other rights. In the US, the issue of gun rights can show the limits of an entrenched constitution that fails to keep up with how society has developed.

A flexible constitution can prevent revolution

The ability of a government to change the constitution via simply altering laws makes revolution less likely. This is because citizens will feel there is a clear democratic mechanism through which they can amend the existing constitution thereby meaning that acting outside of the law through political violence is unlikely to be seen to be necessary.

A flexible constitution might create instability

The ability to change the constitution easily and frequently may lead to instability. It may also mean that a political party can change the constitution in their party political interests. This can lead to a lack of legitimacy in the government. The Elections Act (2022) changed some of the rules surrounding elections in the UK. It was passed by the Conservative Government without the support of the Opposition. The Act requires voters in elections to hold photo ID. Many commentators have been critical of this as it is much more likely to disenfranchise Labour voters than Conservative ones. In addition, the role of the Electoral Commission was changed to put it under the supervision of a government minister, rather than being entirely independent as before.

A flexible constitution doesn’t entrench rights

A flexible constitution does not entrench the protection of rights. This can mean that rights can be removed and changed as and when it suits the Government and Parliament. The Coronavirus Act (2020) was passed to allow the government to take emergency measures to deal with the pandemic. These measures included significant restrictions of civil liberties, like the imposition of a national lockdown. Because the UK constitution is flexible this could be passed via an ordinary statute law and the Act was passed in just six days.

A flexible constitution over-relies on conventions

Flexible constitutions can often be found to over-rely on conventions that can be ignored. As such, it is much easier for a flexible constitution to fall into a crisis as happened over the People’s Budget in 1909.

Sometimes uncodified constitutions are called unwritten constitutions whilst codified constitutions are called written constitutions. This can sometimes be confusing because a substantial proportion of uncodified constitutions (like that of the UK!) are, in fact, partially written down.

Unitary vs federal

A unitary system is one in which power is usually concentrated in the central government. Unitary Constitutions tend to exist in smaller countries or countries with a very homogenous population. The UK officially has a unitary constitution. Federal constitutions have shared sovereignty. The federal (national or central) government will control some issues while the states or provinces will be in charge of others. Of these two different types of government, neither has legal supremacy over the other.

The UK as a unitary constitution

The UK has traditionally been considered to be a unitary state. However, the devolution of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in 1998 has challenged this notion. Yet, the powers given to the Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Executive and Welsh Government are all devolved powers. The Westminster Government therefore retains sovereignty, as an Act of Parliament could reverse the Acts of devolution. The UK Parliament therefore retains legal sovereignty over the devolved assemblies.

The USA as a federal constitution

An example of federalism in action exists in the USA. It is up to different states to decide, for example, if they use Capital Punishment. Currently only 27 states allow the death penalty. Another example is that 18 states have fully legalised cannabis for recreational use; in others it is legal only for medical use or is illegal.

A unitary state streamlines decision-making

In a unitary state decision making is centralised and therefore it may be quicker and more efficient to implement policies. As there are fewer layers of government to deal with, there may be less obstacles to getting things done.

A unitary state has better regional cooperation

A unitary state will better be able to coordinate government between different regions of the state and create fewer conflicts and more consistency in the policies being enacted.

A unitary state has a better sense of national unity

A unitary state can help foster a clearer sense of national unity and identity. All citizens will be subject to the same laws and conditions regardless of where they live. As such, there is less likely to be friction amongst different regions.

A unitary state has less risk of secession

When power is devolved to a region it is arguably more likely that it will only seek to gain more power and eventually seek secession (full independence from the mother state).

A federal state can advance localism

A federal state allows localism to emerge and consequently allows more people to be happy that local issues are being listened to. This is more likely to lead to a contented citizenry. It also caters for states with a significant demographic diversity.

A federal state limits government power

In a unitary state the power of the government can often become excessive and can stop acting in the full interests of its citizens. A federal system helps to diffuse power so that it does not rest in the hands of a singular central government. This can provide a check on the national executive.

A federal state may increase participation

The existence of federalism can increase political participation because there are more layers of government that voters can have a say on. Whilst some voters may not be concerned with national politics, they may be keen to express their opinion on issues in their regions and communities.

Separated vs Fused Powers

Separated powers refer to a political system where the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are distinct and operate independently. This separation ensures that no single branch can dominate, with a system of checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. The United States is a classic example.

Fused powers describe a system, like in the UK, where the executive is drawn from the legislature, meaning the two are interconnected. The government (executive) is accountable to Parliament (legislature) and must maintain its confidence to remain in power.

Separated Powers

An example of a presidential system with a clear separation of powers is the USA.

Joe Biden, as President of the United States, is not a member of the United States Congress (legislature), and it would be impossible for him to be so. Barack Obama had to step down as Senator for Illinois in order to become President in 2009.

Equally, the president cannot fire a judge, even though he nominates them for the Senate to ratify.

The branches of government in the USA are very clearly define and separated.

Fused Powers

In a parliamentary system there is a fusion of powers. A person can be an active member of different branches of government. The UK has a parliamentary system of government.

Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister and therefore the Head of the Executive. However, he is also MP for Holborn and St Pancras. He is therefore also a member of the legislature. As leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, he was also invited to become Prime Minister. As Prime Minister he also appoints judges on behalf of the King, even though now, by convention, this is done largely on the advice of a commission. The UK Prime Minister

Presidential and Parliamentary Constitutions

A presidential constitution has a separation of legislative/executive powers, whereas a parliamentary constitution has a fusion of legislative/executive powers.

A presidential system has greater accountability

In a presidential system the President is directly elected by the population. This gives them a clear and direct electoral mandate that may not simply exist in a parliamentary system.

A presidential system can create strong leadership

A President is elected directly by the people and serves as both Head of State and Head of Government. They normally have significant executive powers. This concentration of power can enable swift decision making and strong leadership.

A presidential system has clearly separated powers

A presidential system has a clear separation of power and there are clear checks and balances built into the system. There are different branches of government each with their own responsibilities and powers. This can stop any one branch of government becoming too powerful and abusing its power.

A presidential system provides stability

Presidential systems usually have fixed terms of office for the President and Executive. It is very rare for them to be removed mid-term (for example, through a process of impeachment). Therefore, presidential systems can offer more predictability and stability in the political system.

A parliamentary system creates clear accountability of the Executive to Parliament

In a parliamentary system the government is accountable to Parliament and must answer to them. As Parliament is elected to represent the people, the people are indirectly able to hold the Government to account on a daily basis. This may happen, for example, through Question Time sessions or Select Committees in Parliament.

A parliamentary system ensures that the government has current legitimacy

In a parliamentary system the Government can only hold power if they retain the confidence of the Parliament. If Parliament withdraws that confidence, for example through a motion of no confidence, it is clear that the Government no longer legitimately holds power. As such, this ensures there is a mechanism to check for the continued legitimacy of the government.

A parliamentary system allows for efficient decision-making

In a parliamentary system the executive comes from the legislature. This allows for effective decision making as the Executive are unlikely to face significant opposition from the legislature which they are normally in de facto control of.

A parliamentary system allows flexibility in forming a government

Parliamentary systems allow for flexibility in the creation of the government. If no party wins a majority, a coalition or minority government may be formed. This can prevent overly weak governments being in placed through a divided government.

The last three Conservative British Prime Ministers were all elected by less than 150,000 people:

Rishi Sunak: Won the Conservative leadership election having been publicly nominated by 197 Conservative MPs (later lost his first and only General Election in 2024)

Liz Truss – Won the Conservative leadership election with 81,326 votes from Conservative Party Members (later resigned as Prime Minister after losing her party’s support in 2022)

Boris Johnson – Won the Conservative leadership election with 92,153 votes from Conservative Party Members (later did win a General Election victory in 2019)

Monarchy vs Republic

A monarchical system is one that retains a monarch as Head of State. Currently, there are 43 monarchies, although they fall into differing categories:

Absolute Monarchies: States where a monarch retains absolute control over the governance of the state, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Brunei
Constitutional Monarchies: States where the monarch acts primarily as a symbolic figurehead and ‘reigns, but does not rule’, e.g. United Kingdom, Japan
Semi-Constitutional Monarchies: States where the monarch retains political power, but within a constitutional framework, e.g. Jordan, Morocco.

A republic is a state that does not have a monarch as its Head of State. The two types are:

Presidential Republic: A state in which the President serves both as Head of State and Head of Government. They are elected separately from the legislature, e.g. United States, France.
Parliamentary Republic: A state in which the President serves as Head of State but with largely ceremonial powers. Political power is instead vested in parliament, e.g. Germany, India.

A monarchy provides an independent arbitrator in the political process

If required, it is the Monarch’s constitutional role to act as an independent arbitrator to solve political disputes. This might be particularly important in the event of a Hung Parliament where no individual party can clearly form a Government. Famously this happened in March 1974 where the Queen’s staff made preparations for her to intervene if Edward Heath refused to resign.

A monarchy allows the head of state to focus completely on governing the country

Britain, the Monarch does a number of ceremonial roles that relieve pressure on the Head of Government. Examples of this are meeting foreign Heads of State, foreign dignitaries, and distributing awards. In countries with a Presidential System, like France and the USA, the President has to devote much of their time to these events, thereby reducing the amount of time in which they can actually focus on government.

A monarchy provides a sense of continuity

Prime Ministers come and go. However, the monarch can remain in place for decades. Between 1952 and 2022, Elizabeth II asked 15 people to form a government as Prime Minister over 70 years. The person who held the position when she became monarch was Winston Churchill.

A monarchy provides a distinct national identity

The monarchy is a unique institution with a rich history. This helps to create a distinct British identity which is invaluable for tourism. It is estimated that the Royal Family are worth as much as £500 Million per year to the British tourism industry. The monarchy is a key component of British soft power.

A monarchy as a concept is undemocratic

Britain’s constitutional monarchy can be seen as undemocratic because the head of state is not elected by the people but inherits based on the hereditary principle. In a modern liberal democracy, the idea of an unelected monarch holding any power, regardless of whether it is symbolic, can be seen as outdated and inconsistent with the values of equality and representation.

A monarchy reinforces classism

The existence of Britain’s constitutional monarchy can be seen to perpetuate the notion of a class-based society. The royal family, and the associated nobility, are seen as symbols of inherited wealth at odds with liberal conceptions of social mobility.

A monarchy is arguably expensive

Maintaining the royal family and their various residences, security, and ceremonial functions can be costly. The official expenditure on the royal family in 2021-22 was 102.44 million, £1.29 per UK citizen.

A monarchy may slow down decision-making

In a constitutional monarchy, certain decisions and legislative processes may require royal assent or consultation with the monarch, which can add an additional layer of bureaucracy. In 2021 a Guardian investigation found that Elizabeth II had given ‘Queen’s Consent’ (as opposed to Royal Assent) on 1,062 bills that impacted the Crown Estate.

2.1 UK Constitution

What is a constitution?

What are the two main types of constitutions?

What are the different characteristics of constitutions?