JANUARY 2002
Or is this just a myth? After all, is not France proud of her revolutionary ideals? Does the US not celebrate her written constitution? At a time of rapid change, when we find ourselves questioning ever more the nature of the state in which we live, it is facile to consider our own constitution faultless simply because of its longevity.
Is the constitution past its sell-by date? The answer does not come from the rights and wrongs of individual parts of the constitution, but from examining the philosophical reasoning behind it.
The argument has two aspects to it, but they are inter-woven. Believing that the British constitution is not past its sell-by date, does not necessarily mean being against reforms such as those implemented since 1997 � because the present constitution has allowed these reforms.
It is therefore a complex issue, and one full of contradictions. Edmund Burke�s famous quotation, that �a state without the means of change is without the means of conservatism� exemplifies this. If we are true supporters of the pure, organic constitution, we must believe equally that it should continually evolve. The strength of the constitution derives from the fact that it is like a living organism. No organism can stand still and survive � and the constitution cannot either.
Writing in his 1947 essay, The Case for Conservatism, Quentin Hogg, later Lord Hailsham (and later a supporter of a bill of rights), summed up this viewpoint: �A living society can only change healthily when it changes naturally � that is, in accordance with its acquired and inherited character and at its given rate.�
Following on from Burke�s critique of the French revolution, Lord Hailsham underlined the Conservative point of view which may also serve as a warning to the New Labour reformers of today: �Reformers who put the revolution first and do not make due concessions to tradition, to the living nature of society which requires changes to be made gently, at a gradual speed, inevitably involve themselves in the use of dictatorial methods, and usually end by producing a reaction which defeats the very objects which they mean to serve.�
Some 50 years later, these words had resonance when the Labour government tried to impose their own men when devolving power to Wales and London. And yet, even these reforms, whilst appearing at first sight revolutionary and dramatic, really conform to the organic nature of Britain�s evolving constitution, because they are quite piecemeal.
The arguments put forward for a change to the British constitution are many and varied. The organisation Charter88, which campaigns for a new, written constitution, claims that Britain has lost faith in its institutions and political systems. Its goal is to have a �citizen�s constitution� by 2010, a constitution �created by the citizens whose rights, powers, freedoms and duties it will define.�
Those who believe that the constitution is outdated say that it does not protect the rights of the average man in the street. In an increasingly diverse society which feels ever more disenfranchised, the state must � through a bill of rights and through electoral and government reform � ensure that our rights are set in stone, unable to be threatened by Commons majorities.
But this is at odds with Britain�s organic tradition and certainly threatens the four main features of our constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, the fact that the state is unitary, and the presence of a parliamentary government under a constitutional monarchy have all been challenged to varying degrees.
Britain�s entry into the Common Market and many of the European Union�s subsequent treaties, have challenged all four features of the constitution.
Surely the presence of the constitution in its current form and the way it has evolved is the only way to protect against the social and cultural whims of the day� while also retaining a degree of flexibility.
Flexibility because, as Burke implied, things do change, and need to change, to adapt to different times and new challenges. But wholesale, revolutionary change would destroy the foundations upon which the country has been built over many centuries and threaten the feeling of security which is underestimated, yet crucial, in an ever-changing world. New constitutions would soon become out-dated themselves (witness Americans� right to bear arms) and then difficult to change without further upheaval and instability.
Of course, the problem with the debate is that the current constitution is not perfect and a constitution probably never can be. But this certainly does not mean that it is past its sell-by date particularly as possible replacements are never perfect either.
Reform of the House of Lords, for example, sounds admirable until we investigate what it might be replaced with. It is easy to see why this, essentially class-based part of the parliamentary system, is seen as out-dated. Obviously undemocratic, unaccountable and antiquated, it is, for many, a symbol of all that is wrong with the British style of government.
But, of course, if we decide that this part of the constitution is past its sell-by date, we have to know what to replace it with. Would the �lords� still be appointed? Should the second chamber be abolished altogether? Should there be direct elections to the �senate�?
Charter88, in its submission to the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, took this last viewpoint. �If the Senate is to be regarded as a legitimate and representative body it must be directly elected,� it said. �It will not be possible to achieve the Government�s stated aim of a more �democratic and representative� body without direct election.�
However, the strength of the second chamber in Britain is that its members, though unelected � or perhaps because they are unelected � offer experience, knowledge and a distinct lack of self-promotion that is sadly lacking in the Commons. Lord Norton of Louth, Chairman of the Conservative Party�s Commission to Strengthen Parliament said: �Election would challenge, not enhance the basic accountability of the political system. Who would electors hold accountable if two elected chambers failed to reach agreement?�
So we always must examine the alternatives. It is too easy, too symbolic of our throw-away, unthinking society to dismiss something which is old, something which is contrary to our expectations of what should work. The House of Lords does work and few people can agree on an alternative to improve it.
This one example illustrates the problems with replacing the constitution. Similar objections could be raised in other areas of possible reform: the electoral system; regional government, a bill of rights; and the monarchy.
Britain is faced with challenges. Our national identity, the identities of peoples within the United Kingdom, the way in which we are governed, and our role in the world and in Europe are all being questioned. Only by Burke�s combination of �change� and �conservatism� will Britain adapt to these challenges. We must reform if we are to conserve but it is dangerous if the reforms take place too quickly. The British constitution is not past its sell-by date, in fact, never has it been more important that it remains intact.
Bibliography
�Unlocking Democracy�, Charter88. www.unlockingdemocracy.org.uk
�Submission to the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords�, Charter88. www.charter88.org.uk/westminster/9907lordsub.html
Davis, Norman: THE ISLES, A HISTORY (Edition 2) London: Macmillan, 2000.
Fenny, Ron: ESSENTIAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 2000 London: LGC, 2000.
Hogg, Quintin: THE CASE FOR CONSERVATISM London: Penguin 194 7.
Jones, Bill et al: POLITICS UK (Edition 4) London: Longman, 2001.
Scruton, Roger: POLITICAL THOUGHT (Edition 2) London: Macmillan, 1996