Why I’d like a British constitution
Last week I wrote an article for CIF on why we need a constitution as a glue that binds us together.
I believe we need a constitution that explicitly codifies the rights and responsibilities of British citizens. It would not only be a vital tool in politically educating existing Britons of their rights and responsibilities as citizens, but would also be a source of empowerment for immigrants. It would accord them civil rights and responsibilities and signal that they are part of a new home and they have to adjust to that.
…
I’m talking here about a nation bound together not by race or culture (when has Britain ever been mono-cultural?) but common political values, expressed through a strong parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and expression, secularism, stronger civil liberties and more transparent political engagement.
To which Anthony Barnett at OurKingdom responded with several points:
Firstly, he says Britain is already multi-national, so a constitution would only apply to England, and Scotland wants its own. I hadn’t considered this to be honest. I thought a single constitution would have been an ideal way to keep England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland together politically, while they could become more decentralised over time. Oh well, point taken.
He also said I’m too obsessed with the American constitution.
But the South African example shows how a popular movement can buy into the whole process of constitution creation to make it popular. The German constitution has a strong court, extensive federal decentralisation – with the Lander represented in the second chamber (the Lords is another reason we need a new settlement that is also codified). The Spanish constitution sets about trying to ensure a multi-national entity sticks together. We have to make constitution creation more forward looking than harping back to the birth of the USA.
This is also a good point. I suppose what I admire about the American constitution though is the way it has become a symbol for (new and old) citizens as their contract with the government.
America has been a huge importer of immigrants for generations and it has used the constitution, perhaps more symbolically than in reality, to use it to empower themselves. A report in the Economist (which I can’t find) this year said that Muslims in America faced more hostility in the media but they integrated better because: (a) they bought into the idea that they were Americans regardless; and (b) they used constitutional freedoms to get their way rather than simply complain as the likes of the MCB do here.
Obviously a constitution isn’t just about helping immigrants or smoothing over race-relations. My point here is to say that it can be a document that empowers people in demanding their rights, whether they are immigrants or long-standing citizens. Surely, in our state of political apathy, that is what we need?
Needless to say this is part of my Britishness agenda, but I don’t want to raise Dave Hill and Zohra Moosa’s blood pressure too much.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by Sunny Hundal
Filed under
Blog ,Our democracy ,Race relations
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
I have always been amused by the old quote that the Americans required a constitution to prove that they weren’t British. This point withstands all subsequent applications.
In fact isn’t it the charm of Britishness the perverse intangibiliy of it? Why try to dissolve our exceptionalism by codifying our identity?
I concur with your assertion, Sunny, that it is part of your agenda to push for a constitution as you have the freedom to express your political views, although this case also indicates the extent of your flawed ‘leftist’ belief in liberty as you wish define the limits of dissent by prejudicing, presupposing or preventing the case for their active justification – this would be an unhealthy state of affairs. Surely any constitution is by definition unconstitutional!
Perhaps we could engage in a dialogue on the principles and logic of common law? The assurance of good government through legitmacy based on relevance and agreement, rather than force of might?
Logic demands it’s own conclusions: freedom is not bound, least of all by opinion.
How about just upholding the one we got in 1689?
A Constitution should be about protecting the citizen from the State, not “rights”, which tend to end up becoming the obligations of others.
What we need is not so much a written constitution [which in the USA has a fossilising influence on politics as well as a symbolic one] as wholesale and piecemeal reform of our political institutions to give more power to voters and less to bloated, bankrupt [and corrupt] party machines. First and foremost, we need genuine proportional representation – not the ‘party list’ variety. A separate parliament for England to get rid of the overweening Scottish influence in Westminster affairs. And several other measures to involve citizens much more in consultative processes preparatory to legislation, so that we don’t feel our influence is limited to rubber-stamp voting once every few years. The ‘democratic deficit’ problem is in essence to devise ways in which to prevent small tails wagging large dogs. A written constitution could be one element in this, but unless it is extremely carefully framed it might do more harm than good. People aren’t stupid. They know that all the NuLab parade of consultative processes through ‘focus groups’ etc. is just a facade, and until they feel their views will really be taken into account they will continue to be apathetic.
I worry Sunny about the fossilising effect of a constitution on the UK. To take up your point about Britishness, Britishness is something that has changed throughout history- and I think that British identity at the moment is in flux again, I worry that we might fix in stone a set of rules defining ourselves which actually don’t meet later needs. Its also worth establishing what precisely a constitution would do. I am less worried about a settlement that defines processes- because obviously the outcomes then can change- but something that defines anything bar the broadest sense of outcome means that you run the danger of fossilisation. I wonder as well whether you really want a constitution or a more adequate symbol of the state- why do you think a constitution would create loyalty and is it its constitutionality that would create that loyalty.
I think the most important question is what goes into a constitution. Roger has a very good point: a constitution can be used to enslave people as easily as free them.
All you need is something incomprehensibly complicated which buys off the right lobby groups. Then you can put anything you like into it.
Extremely interesting lecture on the concept of the British Constitution by Prof Vernon Bogdanor linked below.
It would help of course if we could make our own laws, but we have happily subcontracted / surrendered (depending on point of view) much of that tedious business to the EU.
We have a constitution. If we didn’t have a constitution then every single law degree in the country wouldn’t have a constitutional law module. If you need someone to write it down for you, there’s any number of constitutional law textbooks available in your local library…
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Why Quantitative Easing doesn’t make common sense
» Barclays was also bailed out – Diamond doesn’t deserve a bonus
» Ten myths about private rented housing
» Even on the left, morality has its limits
» The NHS bill could be a Waterloo moment for the govt
» Ken Livingstone and gay rights – it just isn’t an issue
» Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles?
» New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth
» In defence of Sky News’ re-Tweeting ban
» Another reason to continue banker bashing
» An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs
|
14 Comments 17 Comments 26 Comments 42 Comments 21 Comments 13 Comments 49 Comments 11 Comments 78 Comments 5 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » Robin Levett posted on An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs » kernowjim posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » ROFLMFAO posted on Fabians change policy on unpaid internships » Cherub posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » jojo posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Sun journos nicked in hack enquiry shocker « andrew henley posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Daniel Factor posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » UKFI Not FFP posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » Frances_coppola posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Spike1138 posted on Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles? » Bren Cook posted on New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth » Frances_coppola posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Tricia McDaid posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Edward Buxton posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Rich posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction |









