Page 53 - DPOL202_COMPARATIVE_POLITICS_AND_GOVERNMENT_ENGLISH

Comparative Politics and Government

Notes political gains. Last, it can be like a plaything in the hands of judicial tribunals who may create
controversies by giving twists to the provisions of the constitution.
So is the case with a rigid constitution that has its own merits and demerits. Its merits are: First,
it offers a guarantee of solidity and permanence. It is generally secure from legislative encroachments
and provides safeguards against hasty changes. Second, since the provisions of the constitution
are not easily amendable, the crafty politicians feel discouraged in changing the rules of the states
as per their whims and caprices. It, therefore, commands the confidence of the people in general.
Last, it protects the rights and liberties of the people in a better way. Since the rights of the people
are put in writing and since constitutional provisions cannot be amended quickly, it is certain that
people feel more secure under such a constitution. But a rigid constitution has its demerits too.
First, it inculcates the feelings of conservatism. It may fail to keep pace with the changing conditions
of the country. Second, the element of inelasticity leads to the possibilities of frequent upheavals
or revolts. Last, it opens room for judicial supremacy. Whenever there is some controversy, matters
are taken to the courts for an authentic interpretation. The result is that constitution becomes a
lawyers’ heaven.
We may endorse this view of Lawrence that the classification of the constitution into flexible and
rigid forms is hardly a real one. The reason is that the flexibility or rigidity of a constitution
depends not so much upon the breadth of the written provisions or upon the process of amendment,
as it depends upon the character or temperament of the people. The English people are conservative
by their nature as a result of which their constitution, though a model of a flexible constitution,
has a conservative or ‘prescriptive’ (a term popularised by Edmund Burke) character. The American
constitution is notoriously rigid and yet it has been changed not only by the process of formal
amendment (that is so cumbersome) but also by other sources like executive decrees, legislative
measures, judicial decisions, and usages and customs. The American people proudly say that
though they still have the constitution made by the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, it is not the
same thing what was produced by their founding fathers.
One thing is, however, certain. A flexible constitution is better than a rigid constitution. As such,
if a state has a rigid constitution, it must also evolve some mechanism for the amendment of the
constitution in times of needs without facing insurmountable difficulties. The statesmen of a
country must also be wise enough to know the nature and temperament of their people. If the
constitution of a state fails to be in consonance with the national temperament, it is bound to
collapse the examples of which may be seen in the political developments of many countries of the
Afro-Asian world. It means that an element of flexibility must invariably be accommodated into
the fundamental law of the land. We may appreciate the view of Bryce that only flexible constitutions
“can be stretched or bent so as to meet emergencies without breaking their framework; and when
the emergency has passed, they slip back into their old form like a tree whose outer branches have
been pulled aside to let a vehicle pass.”
Like governments, constitutions may also be classified as unitary and federal on the ground of
concentration and distribution of powers. A unitary constitution is one that vests all powers in a
central government, but a federal constitution distributes powers “between the central and regional
governments. The units of local government do not enjoy autonomy under a unitary constitution
as they live and work under the control of the central government, but the units or regional
governments enjoy autonomy under a federal constitution in the sphere allotted to them by the
constitution. It is essential that the federal constitution specifies the powers of both the governments
so that there is, as far as possible, no chance of conflict between the two. Its process of amendment
is made rigid so that it may hot be easily amendable by the unilateral action of the central
government. The bill of constitutional amendments passed by 2/3 majority in the chambers of
national legislature and it is subject to ratification by the majority of the legislatures of the units by
similar majority as in the United States, or by the final verdict of the people given in a referendum
as in France, or by both as in Switzerland. An independent and impartial judiciary is also set up
to act as an umpire between the two governments and to interpret the provisions of the Constitution
when required.

48 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY