Pros And Cons Of Constitutional Conventions

1614 Words 7 Pages
A constitution is a body of rules for which the Government regulates a state.
A constitution regulates the relationship between the state and its citizens, it is sometimes a document with the principle rules that structure the functions of the Government as in the US Constitution .
Constitutional conventions are considered to be historical customs that will determine what happens in certain situations regarding the constitution, or as described by the Cabinet Manual as constitutional practices that are regarded as binding in operation but not in law.
Many constitutional conventions are a result of traditional practices. In the UK, many constitutional conventions came from the formulation of political practices in the 18th century and towards the end of the 19th century.
The ambiguity of these conventions has led to discussions about whether there is a need for a codification of the constitution of the UK, which would try to dismiss this uncertainty and instead state outright the
…show more content…
Conventions are also not limited to the initial interpretation of them and can adapt and change over time. This speaks to the ambiguity of these conventions and could lead to misuse or malpractice, with little or no fear of real-world recourse. Codification could help minimise this mismanagement of them but would lead to entrenchment.
There are positive and negatives to codification of the UK constitution. A pro of the current (unwritten) system is that the British system of governance works well in its present form. The contrast to this is that many of the basic rules of British government do not exist in any written form but depend on, instead on unwritten conventions or traditions, most of which are meaningless to ordinary people.
The UK has made some strides towards codification of its constitution with the release in 2011 of the Cabinet

Related Documents