If the UK were to adopt a codified constitution, it would have an educative function in that it would clarify the nature of the constitution. This lack of clarity previously has led to a gradual shift of power from the executive to the prime minister. As mentioned in the source, it would ‘tackle disillusionment with politics’, and if the powers of parliament, the executive and the judiciary were clearly stated, there would be less opportunity for the power to be transferred so easily. Many people argue that without a system of ‘checks and balances to regulate it, power will continue to drift towards the executive, and this is seen as being fundamentally undemocratic. Another argument in favour of codification for the UK, mentioned in the source, is that the public will fully understand what their rights and freedoms are, as currently there is no single statement outlining them all. By codifying our constitution, it is suggested that it would be harder to change i.e. it would become entrenched. Such entrenchment would prevent temporary governments trying to manipulate indistinct powers to their own advantage. In addition, when concerning the rights of citizens, they would be less vulnerable to attacks by parliamentary legislation because they would be a part of a broader codified document. Thirdly, the source states that a fully codified constitution would ‘bring us in line’ with other modern democracies around the world. There is a general feeling in Britain that if we are to be considered a modern European state, then Britain should conform to the ‘normal’ practice of being governed by a codified constitution. Many people believe that an uncodified constitution is weak in establishing core values and principles, which is vital to any political system around the world. Supporters of a codified constitution also argue that it would give citizens a clearer sense of civic allegiance.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document