PROGRAMME 3

Background information

A System of Checks and Balances?

Britain's uncodified constitution
Britain's constitution is not unwritten, but 'uncodified'. That is to say, it is documented not in one single document entitled 'The Constitution' as the US Constitution is, but is instead contained in a wide variety of sources – sometimes quite obscure. The US Constitution, on the other hand, is short and accessible, so that all citizens can read it. It also includes a Bill of Rights, clearly documenting the rights of the citizen (albeit as decreed in the nineteenth century).

Sources of the British Constitution
The primary sources are laws, such as the Representation of the People Acts, Parliament Acts, the European Communities Act 1972, and Government of Wales Act 1998. Then there is common law – made by decisions of the courts – and conventions. These are regularly observed practices, considered authoritative, but not necessarily legally enforceable. One of the most recent Acts, which will have a significant effect on the relationship between public authorities and citizens, is the Freedom of Information Act.

The importance of convention
The British constitution is unique, in that much of it is based not on statute law, but on convention and common law. Advocates of a wholly written, codified constitution claim that this heavy reliance on convention enables the government of the day to amend the constitution and affect our rights far too easily. Others argue that as the system evolves it has produced liberties that other countries do not enjoy and that the British constitution has an ability to adapt to changing political circumstances more easily than other constitutions.

Parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty entails the right to make or unmake any law whatever. This means that (a) historically the courts have had no power to veto legislation, and (b) no Parliament is bound in perpetuity by existing laws, including our treaties with the EU. Under the Human Rights Act there are some powers for the courts to strike down some legislation that is incompatible with these rights. However, only Parliament itself can change primary legislation. This makes the exercise on electoral systems all the more pertinent, as were a party such as the DCP ever to get into power – with a parliamentary majority they literally could give democracy the 'mercy killing' they promise!

Where are the checks and balances?
The US constitution is founded on checks and balances. Britain's constitution on the other hand, has never had a full separation of powers. The Lord Chancellor for example, fulfils the following roles: Cabinet member, Speaker of the House of Lords, and head of the judiciary. Whilst this is sometimes criticised, there are those who point out that the role provides a good link between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and that it reflects the role of the Lords as the highest court in Britain.

Arguments against the status quo
The current system produces 'elective dictatorship' – with no constitution to constrain them, single party governments can: control the parliamentary legislative process; determine the composition of the House of Lords; limit our access to information; and decide the most advantageous date for a general election.

Arguments for the status quo
No party controls the House of Commons unless it wins a democratic election. Also, the House of Lords provides a balance of power by sometimes forcing legislation back to the Commons for reconsideration – as it did with the recent Terror Bill. However, if after three rejections of a Bill by the Lords the Government still doesn't like their position, it can invoke the Parliament Act, and pass it regardless, as indeed it did three times with the recent Hunting Bill. Finally, much of the administration is apolitical, for example the civil service, which owes its allegiance to the crown, and the judges, who are not chosen on the basis of their politics.

The media as balance of power
Strictly speaking, the media is not a balance of power in itself, but the very fulcrum on which the balance of power system operates. It is the media that provides the information upon which lobby groups, corporations, individuals and collectives can act to influence government decisions and policy. Newspapers, books, magazines, television channels and the internet are perpetual battlegrounds for public opinion, with a multitude of different interest groups vying for the consent of the reader or viewer. It is consequently very important to understand media bias, and the means by which the media can be manipulated by a variety of interest groups.