The and some others support that it should not

 The United Kingdom  has  an uncodified constitution comprising several sources, some people  say they should be codified and some others support that it should not be changed and stay the same.Firstly lets see  what is a constitution? In short Constitution is the fundamental law upon which the formation of the entire legislation of a country is based on the rights and obligations of the citizen, the organisation and basic rules of state and institution operation.The constitution can be elaborated and approved by a constitutional assembly (a delegation of the people) or a sum of laws or other provisions that over time have become fundamental.  Present constitutions tend to be writen files as mentioned by Adam Tomkins in Public law,{Oliver ,1992  } written constitutions are not created by accident.They are results of  the product of revolutions, independence, {7 },together with revolutions,  unification or dissolution of a country,or a way of modernising the country{8}.Countries in the international with out a codified constitution are Israel ,United Kingdom , New Zealand and Canada A constitution does not necessary should be democratic, within the current experience of the word totalitarian states like Belarus  North Korea, or Saudi Arabia{2} have a constitution or a hard and fast of basic laws which underpin their governance,It can not always be considered as an agent or defender of democracy.   The debate over the codification of the British constitution has gone through many levels in the last thirty years  {Oliver ,1992 .The United Kingdom’s  constitution has particular advantages, particularly in terms of promoting democracy, transparency,accountabilit ,As an  uncodified constitution, the United Kingdom Constitution is particularly flexible and can easily evolve and adapt to changing seasons and situations. Modern times require changing laws to adapt to the trends of perceptions and philosophy of people.All that is required is for Parliament to recognize the need for change and therefore continue to make modifications In consequence, it is observed that the traditional laws in the British constitution do not prevent the progress but, on the contrary, being in changes so that they are aligned with altered situations. This characteristic it is a stabilisation and considering that exist democratic processes and that so much the juridicial body what the parliament are there in order to  protect the constitution, then he is better adapted he reflects a continuously altered world. Contrary to the unwritten constitution, the written constitution is rather inflexible and seated difficult to modification,Actually, a glance in a such constitutional model, reveals the inaction the effort of change of laws. Apart from this flexibility, the unwritten constitution seated the conventions and the juridicial crises particularly sensitive in the social changes. The juridicial judges in their decisions it is in position to be puzzled for the changes as they happen in the particular periods, allowing in the juridicial system to extend itself freely.          Despite the advantages of the unwritten constitution, there are limits to its superiority.First of all, an uncodified constitution is equivocal and  unclear. It is full of  doubts, as a result, contains some elements of contradictions. It undermines the government’s performance. Since it is very easy to achieve changes in a political system with an unwritten constitution, many undesirable changes occur resulting in a lot of instability. Moreover, it does not express clearly the fundamental rights of individuals. They can not enjoy their freedoms and can not participate actively in the democratic process. Therefore, an unwritten constitution is not good for democracy, it is superfluous to say that an unwritten constitution is not good for a federal system, as it does not provide for a proper division of powers between central and federal units – states or provinces. Because of this, there are many disagreements between the central government and state or provincial governments.First of all, an uncodified constitution is equivocal and  unclear. It is full of  doubts, as a result, contains some elements of contradictions. It undermines the government’s performance. Since it is very easy to achieve changes in a political system with an unwritten constitution, many undesirable changes occur resulting in a lot of instability. Moreover, it does not express clearly the fundamental rights of individuals. They can not enjoy their freedoms and can not participate actively in the democratic process. Therefore, an unwritten constitution is not good for democracy, it is superfluous to say that an unwritten constitution is not good for a federal system, as it does not provide for a proper division of powers, In conclusion although the British constitution is based on the separation of powers, in fact the composition of Parliament shows that the principle is not respected. Since the majority of ministers are members of the elected party, executive power is basically part of the legislature, the highest source of law in the United Kingdo

x

Hi!
I'm Marcella!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out