Because constitutional safe guards in Britain are weak or absent, government can be more powerful. Clearly this can be viewed positively or negatively. Supporters of the current uncodified constitution argue that, on balance, it is better to have a government that can deal with problems or crises without too much inhabitation. They point to the USA where government and congress are frequently prevented from acting decisively by the fear that the constitution will prevent them doing so. The constant battle against crime in the USA, for instance, has been compromised by such constraints. Conversely, the constitutional weakness of the congress in controlling the military powers of the president has also created much tension. In the UK, the relationship between government and parliament is flexible; in countries with codified constitutions it tends to be fixed and can inhibit effective governance.
Comments
No comments have yet been made