Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1547522
THE UK constitution has un- doubtedly been under pressure in recent years. The latest at- tack came from Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who, under the pretext of a programme of de- centralisation and devolution, is strongly pushing for a written constitution. Many are now posing the question: "Why should Brit- ain not have such a constitu- tion?" She is, after all, one of just three democracies without one, the others being New Zea- land and Israel. There are two reasons why Britain has lacked a constitu- tion. The first is that, histori- cally, Britain never had a con- stitutional moment; the second is the doctrine of parliamenta- ry sovereignty. Furthermore, considering Britain's extensive history, it can be confidently stated that its constitutional law is neither flawed nor in a state of disor- der. It is working just as well as, or perhaps even better than, many written constitutions around the world. The absence of a single writ- ten document for the UK's system of government high- lights the effectiveness of the Westminster parliamentary democracy and the stability it has provided the nation. This contrasts with numerous oth- er nations, where written con- stitutions were established in the aftermath of revolutions or declarations of independence. Any examination of written constitutions globally reveals that they typically emerge only following a successful invasion or a significant failure within the political system, resulting in a breakdown of the existing methods of governance and political operation. The cur- rent malaise in the UK does not resemble any of these cat- astrophic moments and does not necessitate a complete overhaul or a radical new ap- proach to governance and po- litical processes. The unwritten nature of the constitution is something dis- tinctly British, reminding us of a great history, and it is a source of national pride. Con- trary to claims that it is out of date, it is evolutionary and flexible in nature, more easily enabling practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms to be made than would be the case under an entrenched constitutional document. Strange as it may sound, a written constitution would most likely enshrine the doc- trine of separation of powers, which in its strict form is al- ien to the essence of the UK constitution. The essence of the British constitution has not been a separation of pow- ers but a mixing and sharing of powers that has served the country well in terms of min- isterial and administrative re- sponsibility, and accountability to parliament and the elector- ate. Trying to impose separa- tion of powers onto the British system of government would be an affront to the British con- stitutional tradition. In England during the inter- regnum period, Oliver Crom- well implemented the Instru- ment of Government in 1653, which has been identified as the world's first written consti- tution. Due to its inability to be amended and problems of con- centration in relation to execu- tive power, the document was replaced by what has largely been considered England's sec- ond written constitution— the Humble Petition and Advice. This failed soon after Crom- well's death. Consequently, when the Glo- rious Revolution occurred in 1688, it was not surprising that parliament opted for a statute, the Bill of Rights 1689, which guaranteed its rights against the monarch. This choice re- flected a reluctance to experi- ment with another fundamen- tal document that could be vulnerable to monarchic abuse or might restrict constitutional change. The UK's constituent parts have produced other constitu- tional documents that relate to high-profile political demands and state architecture, such as the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Acts of Union 1707, but none of these is akin to a fun- damental written constitution that sits above all other types of law. Coming to modern times, the Brexit process demonstrat- ed both the flexibility and ri- gidity of the UK's unwritten constitution. The coronavirus period also demonstrated that accountability in the UK con- stitution is alive and well and that even during times of cri- sis it was quite far from see- ing what could be called 'un- checked' power. It allowed for lockdowns to be challenged, for bad practice to be exposed and for a thorough review of the response to begin as well. Legal challenges to the lock- down restrictions were upheld in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Governmen- tal malpractice was revealed through various means. Various government actions during the pandemic were ex- posed as unlawful; government ministers were fined and even resigned for breaking the rules, and the government had to an- swer difficult questions daily in its coronavirus briefings and during parliamentary sessions. In the absence of a national crisis or any compelling cata- lyst that would render a writ- ten constitution necessary, it is futile to assume that the pri- mary British political parties would reach a consensus on the specific contents of such a constitution. This holds even if all parties were to agree on the principle and desirability of codifying the constitution. The parties are inherently com- petitive, always seeking media attention, trying to outdo or embarrass each other. Addi- tionally, significant ideological differences exist that would hinder the completion of the work, especially if any major changes were suggested simul- taneously. There is consequently little value in further deliberation on this issue. The UK consti- tution relies on the House of Commons for honesty and the House of Lords for wisdom. The UK's parliamentary su- premacy has survived for over 400 years and continues to out- shine any other proposed con- stitutional model. 10 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 11 NOVEMBER 2026 OPINION Parliamentary vs constitutional supremacy: The UK debate Mark Said Veteran lawyer The UK's parliamentary supremacy has survived for over 400 years and continues to outshine any other proposed constitutional model British Prime Minister Andy Burnham