It constitutions are not created by accident.They are

       It is popularly believed that 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 uncodified constitution is not good for a federal system, does not provide an appropriate 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 uncodified 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 UK constitution is primarily based on the separation of powers, in reality the composition of Parliament shows that the principle is not respected because most  of ministers are members of the elected party,the executive is basically a part of the legislature, the highest source of law in the UK.            In the other hand some people support that the uk constitution must be contified,lets see the merits and demerits of written constitution, ”Typically”  the establishment of an independent struggle, a revolution or a major conflict, provides their nation with a well-defined list of fundamental laws and principles gathered in a document.In the first place a part of the advantage of a codified constitution is its readability of meaning. Liberal supporters of codified pensions have praised its predictability. which means that whoever is subject to the constitution is fully aware of his concepts and terms. This clarity makes it less complicated for judges to supervise the adoption of the most recent laws. A method known as judicial evaluation sees judges voting whether new laws are constitutional right or not. this saves the constitutional from any new law that can also endanger it.Moreover, one of the most  significant reasons for the codification of the Constitution is that it will provide a clearer and more reachable description of the fundamental rules and principles under which the state is established and governed {Bogdanor Khaitan and Vogenauer 2007}.A further advantage of,recommend of people againts a written constitution ,is that it would be extremely hard to make it , of course  to codify the existing set of rules, the vastness of the current system would be a major problem for the new constitutional authors, specifically what need to be included and what omit.Moreover non-constitutional countries like United Kingdoms, for example, have been criticized for the amount of discretion granted to their ruling party and even their individual prime ministers under their current systems. Critics of codified constitution  said the UK Prime Minister is in a position to impose changes to the law through parliament as part of an individual effort to change the laws of the land. That would be impossible under a codified constitution where the burden of proof is put on the government to justify restrictions     Even though ,the United Kingdom is growing in a peaceful way with almost no main internal turmoil. The gradual development of a constitution has spurred the non violent improvement of the country or the dearth of revolution reduces the want for codification is a question of wondering. but, it is clear that  the current state of constitutional affairs has been running efficaciously for over three hundred years old . converting it only for the sake of exchange is, at satisfactory, unreasonable. The argument that a exchange must be made as “times are changing” is inherently logically wrong. Times change since the “big bang” and the syntax evolve as and when required. moreover, it isn’t unreasonable to argue that the fact that the current constitutional arrangements are three hundred years old  is a significant value in itself.Moreover  The evolutionary character of the British constitution means that it is relatively easy to add new constitutional laws and adapt to the changing seasons. However, one of the flaws is that it is not so easy to access a single written document. Without limiting a written constitution, Britain has been able to keep up with the times and has an important capacity to adapt its old institutions to meet new demands. Britain has a long and continuous national history, and the origins of constitutional practice date back to the Kings of the Saxons who ruled England before the 1070 conquest of the Normans. There has been a long tradition of strong central authority dating back to the Tudors, its reversals constitutional development of the 17th century were largely peaceful and evolving

BACK TO TOP
x

Hi!
I'm Nicholas!

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

Check it out