Britain’s Unwritten Constitution: A System Ripe for Reform

Britain’s unwritten constitution is a relic of a bygone era, a patchwork quilt of antiquated laws, conventions, and gentlemen’s agreements that assumes our leaders will act in good faith. But as recent years have made painfully clear, this system is hopelessly inadequate in the face of a political class more interested in serving the interests of the wealthy and well-connected than the public good. The time has come to call this what it is: a systemic failure, and one that demands a radical overhaul. The UK needs a written constitution—one that enshrines accountability, transparency, and democratic principles in law, not vague convention. While a written constitution is not a panacea and other countries’ experiences show that they are not immune to corruption or gridlock, the potential benefits for the UK are substantial and deserve serious consideration.

1. A Constitution Designed for Exploitation: A History of Convenience

The unwritten constitution is not a carefully crafted framework but rather a haphazard collection of documents and precedents, rendering it little more than a playground for bad actors. Its evolution is a story of power struggles and compromises, not a deliberate attempt to create a robust system of governance. From the Magna Carta in 1215, which primarily addressed feudal concerns, to the Bill of Rights 1689, which asserted Parliament’s supremacy over the monarchy, the focus has always been on immediate issues rather than long-term principles. The gradual expansion of suffrage and the rise of parliamentary democracy further cemented this ad-hoc approach. Codification wasn’t prioritised because those in power benefited from the ambiguity and flexibility.

Calls for a written constitution have echoed throughout history, from the Chartists in the 19th century to Tony Benn in the 20th. Yet, these calls have been consistently ignored, dismissed as radical or unnecessary. This historical context reveals a stark truth: the unwritten constitution persists not because it’s effective but because it serves the interests of the powerful.

Take Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak—three recent Prime Ministers whose actions highlight the system’s vulnerabilities.

• Boris Johnson: Johnson’s disregard for norms was glaring. From misleading Parliament to evading accountability during the Partygate scandal, he repeatedly flouted principles of transparency and ministerial responsibility. His attempt to prorogue Parliament in 2019 to force through his Brexit agenda showed how easily the unwritten constitution can be bent to serve partisan interests, risking a constitutional crisis.
• Liz Truss: During her brief and catastrophic tenure, Truss’s government introduced a “mini-budget” that caused financial chaos, plunging markets and spiking mortgage rates. The lack of formal constraints on executive power allowed her to push through unfunded tax cuts and deregulation without adequate scrutiny. Her appointments, including Kwasi Kwarteng as Chancellor, were based more on loyalty than competence, demonstrating how easily conventions around merit and accountability can be ignored.
• Rishi Sunak: As Prime Minister, Sunak has faced accusations of conflicts of interest due to his family’s financial holdings, including ties to companies benefiting from government policy. His economic policies, like tax cuts for the wealthiest and deregulation efforts, disproportionately favour corporations and the elite, showcasing how personal and ideological interests can dominate in the absence of robust checks.

These examples make it clear: the lack of enforceable rules emboldens politicians to act with impunity, prioritising personal gain and political survival over the public good.

2. Conventions Are No Substitute for Laws: The Illusion of Self-Regulation

The reliance on conventions and traditions is not just naive; it’s dangerous. We’re expected to believe that ministers will resign when they fail, that leaders will act in the public interest, and that power will be exercised responsibly. Time and again, however, we’ve seen these norms discarded with impunity.

• Ministerial Accountability: Despite catastrophic failures like the Truss mini-budget and Johnson’s misconduct during Partygate, there were no immediate mechanisms to compel resignations. Instead, pressure came only from political expediency within their parties, not from any constitutional mandate.
• Economic Recklessness: Truss’s free-market experimentation—inspired by libertarian think tanks—was pursued without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Similarly, Sunak’s economic policies have been criticised for favouring a narrow elite, raising questions about whose interests are truly served in the absence of enforceable oversight.

The US Constitution, with its explicit separation of powers, provides a stark contrast. The impeachment process, however flawed in practice, offers a mechanism for holding even the President accountable. While other Commonwealth nations, like Australia and Canada, have adopted written constitutions that balance parliamentary sovereignty with codified rights and checks on executive power, proving that a codified system is not antithetical to a Westminster model, it must be acknowledged that the American system has its drawbacks, often leading to political gridlock and a judicialisation of politics.

3. Lobbyists: The Shadow Government Pulling the Strings

Lobbyists have turned Westminster into a marketplace where policies are bought and sold. The lack of transparency and regulation creates a breeding ground for corruption, where wealthy individuals and corporations exert undue influence. Each of these leaders has shown susceptibility to this influence:

• Johnson’s Cronyism: From awarding lucrative contracts to political allies during the COVID-19 pandemic to appointing unqualified individuals to key positions, Johnson’s tenure epitomised the dangers of unchecked executive power influenced by private interests.
• Truss and Think Tanks: Her government’s economic policies were heavily influenced by libertarian think tanks with deep-pocketed donors. This informal but powerful influence underscores the dangers of an unregulated lobbying environment.
• Sunak’s Corporate Ties: The financial sector’s influence on Sunak’s economic agenda—including deregulation and tax relief for corporations—is evident. Meetings with lobbyists are shrouded in secrecy, leaving the public in the dark about whose interests are shaping policy.

A written constitution could mandate greater transparency, requiring full disclosure of lobbying activities and establishing an independent body to oversee these interactions. Measures like a comprehensive register of interests for MPs and stricter rules on the “revolving door” between government and private sector jobs could further mitigate the risk of undue influence.

4. Judicial Power: A Muzzle, Not a Check on Unfettered Power

In theory, the judiciary should be a bulwark against executive overreach. In practice, its hands are tied by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down legislation, even when it’s clearly designed to undermine democratic principles. Judicial reviews, while valuable, are no substitute for a constitution that codifies the limits of power. Johnson’s illegal prorogation of Parliament in 2019 demonstrated how the judiciary’s role is constrained by the lack of a codified framework.

A written constitution could empower the judiciary to play a more robust role, allowing courts to strike down laws that violate fundamental rights or principles of good governance. However, this raises concerns about judicial overreach. Striking a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review would be a crucial aspect of any constitutional reform, ensuring that neither branch oversteps its bounds.

5. Short-Termism: A Feature, Not a Bug of a System Geared Towards Expediency

The unwritten constitution creates a system where short-term political gains take precedence over long-term stability and fairness. From Truss’s economic gamble to Johnson’s prioritisation of populist rhetoric over governance, the focus is always on the next election, not the next generation. Sunak’s policies, too, reflect a tendency to serve immediate allies and interests, leaving systemic issues—like inequality and climate change—unaddressed.

6. The Solution: A Radical Overhaul, Not a Trivial Tweak

It’s not enough to tinker around the edges. Britain needs a written constitution that:

• Codifies Democratic Principles: Enshrines the separation of powers, human rights, and the rule of law in a single, accessible document.
• Mandates Transparency: Requires full disclosure of financial interests, lobbying activities, and policymaking processes.
• Imposes Accountability: Establishes a legally binding code of conduct for all politicians, with independent enforcement mechanisms.
• Empowers the Judiciary: Gives courts the power to strike down unconstitutional laws and actions, while respecting parliamentary sovereignty.
• Protects Public Interests: Prioritises the needs of the many over the whims of the few, with safeguards against economic exploitation and environmental degradation.

7. Addressing the Counterarguments: A Necessary Evil or a Recipe for Disaster?

Critics argue that a written constitution would be too rigid, preventing the flexibility needed to adapt to changing circumstances. They also raise concerns about judicial overreach and the potential for gridlock. These are valid concerns, but they are not insurmountable.

A well-drafted constitution can be both flexible and stable. It can include mechanisms for amendment and adaptation, allowing it to evolve with the times while still providing a solid framework for governance. Judicial review can be structured to respect parliamentary sovereignty, perhaps through a specialised constitutional court with clearly defined powers.

8. Devolution, the Monarchy, and Electoral Reform: Unfinished Business

A written constitution would inevitably impact the UK’s devolved administrations. It would need to clearly define the powers of Westminster and the devolved legislatures, potentially leading to a more federal system. The role of the monarchy would also need careful consideration. While some may advocate for its abolition, others may see a place for a constitutional monarch within a codified framework, perhaps with reduced or clearly defined powers.

Furthermore, constitutional reform should be accompanied by electoral reform. The current first-past-the-post system often produces disproportionate results, undermining the principle of fair representation. A move towards proportional representation could ensure that Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the people.

9. The Path Forward: A Constitutional Convention

Transitioning to a written constitution would be a complex and challenging process. Defining rights, balancing powers, and ensuring future flexibility would require careful deliberation and broad consensus. A constitutional convention, composed of citizens, experts, and representatives from across the political spectrum, could be the ideal forum for this process. This would ensure public participation and ownership of the new constitutional framework.

Conclusion

The unwritten constitution is not a quirky tradition to be celebrated; it’s a fundamental flaw that enables corruption, short-termism, and elite capture. Politicians like Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak have shown us exactly how these weaknesses can be exploited, and the cost is borne by the public. While a written constitution is not a guaranteed solution to all of Britain’s political ills, and other countries demonstrate that they do not prevent corruption in and of themselves, the potential benefits of increased accountability, transparency, and protection of rights are significant. The solution requires serious consideration: a written constitution that puts power in the hands of the people, not the privileged few. Anything less is a betrayal of the democratic ideals we claim to hold dear. The time has come for a national conversation about the future of our democracy. A written constitution deserves a central place in that conversation, not as a definitive answer, but as a crucial question that demands careful consideration and debate.