Page 51 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes It may be understood that here the ground of classification is the ‘instrument of historical evidence’.
Thus, to the category of an evolved or cumulative constitution belongs one which has its origin
mainly in practices, usages and customs and which consists, for most of the part, of accumulated
wisdom of the age, principles of common law, and decisions of courts etc. It is a product of
historical evolution and growth and not of a deliberate or formal enactment or creation. In other
words, it has no conscious starting point, it is not struck off at a specified time and that it changes
by slow and gradual accretion rather than by formal legal processes. An enacted constitution is
one which has been formulated by some constitutional convention summoned by the head of the
state or by people at a particular time well-known to the people of a country. Thus, while the
English constitution is the best example of an evolved constitution, all other constitutions of the
world belong to the category of an enacted constitution. The American constitution is the first
great example of such a constitution made by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.
An evolved constitution has the merit of being thoroughly dynamic. It is always in a process of
change in response to the urges and aspirations of the people. But its demerit is that it lives in the
form of numerous separate and scattered documents and political conventions. It cannot be put
into tue form of a book and, for that reason, an American philosopher like Thomas Paine and a
French historian like A. de Tocqueville gave the view that there was no constitution in England.
Documentary constitution or a constitution made by some assembly is quite specific and its being
in a codified form is always a source of great convenience to the people. But the English people are
proud of their constitution despite the fact that it is a sort of maze in which the wanderer is
perplexed by unreality, by antiquarianism, and by constitutionalism.
Then, we may take up the case of written and unwritten constitutions. In simple terms, a written
constitution is one whose provisions are written in detail; an unwritten constitution is one whose
written provisions are very brief and most of the rules of the constitution exist in the form of
usages and customs. The British constitution is the best example of an unwritten constitution. In
the words of Bryce, it is “a mass of precedents carried in men’s minds or recorded in writing, dicta
of lawyers or statesmen, customs, usages, understandings and briefs, a number of statutes mixed
up with customs and all covered over with a parasitic growth of legal decisions and political
habits.” Herman Finer gives two reasons for designating British constitution as unwritten. First,
the Institutions of government are guided by conventions which are taken for granted, but not
formulated, save occasionally by individuals. Second, the constitution was not framed deliberately
by any formal body like a constituent assembly.
It follows that an unwritten constitution is one in which most, but not all, of the prescriptions have
never been reduced to writing and formally embodied in a document or a collection of documents.
It is made up, as Jameson says, largely of customs and judicial decisions, the former more or less
evanescent and intelligible, since in a written form they exist only in the unofficial collections or
commentaries of the publicists or lawyers.” On the contrary, a written constitution is one in which
most of the provisions are embodied in a single formal written instrument or instruments. It is a
work of conscious art and the result of a deliberate effort to lay down a body of fundamental
principles under which a government shall be organised and conducted.”
A written constitution has its own merits. First, it is full of clarity and definiteness because the
provisions are written in detail. Second, it has the quality of stability. Since the people know about
the nature of contitutional provisions, they feel a sense of satisfaction. Third, since all important
points are reduced to writing, the rights and liberties of the people are secure. But it has its
demerits too. First, it creates a situation of rigidity. Since all important rules are in writing, attempts
are made to act according to rules. It leads to the development of a conservative attitude. Second,
it becomes difficult to change it easily and quickly as per the requirements of the time. As such, the
possibilities of mass upheaval are increased. Third, a written constitution becomes a plaything in
the hands of the lawyers and the courts. Different interpretations come up from time to time that
unsettle the judicial thought of the country.
An unwritten constitution has its own merits and demerits. Its merits are: First, it has the quality
of elasticity and adaptability. Since, most of the rules are in an unwritten form, people may adapt
them in response to the new conditions. Second, it is so dynamic that it prevents the chances of

46 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY