Stability in flexibility: A British lens on constitutional success

Erin F Delaney*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

INTRODUCTION On many of the external metrics outlined in the Introduction to this volume, the United Kingdom ranks among the most successful nation states: It is a functioning democracy with robust rights protection; its public sector is one of the least corrupt; and its citizens benefit from an array of public goods, including health care, education, and a variety of other social welfare programs. From an internal perspective, the flexible British constitution appears well matched to the wants of its citizenry – as J.A.G. Griffith wrote more than thirty-five years ago, “the constitution is no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also” (Griffith 1979: 19). In short, there is no obvious gap between the aspirational and the actual. This exceptional performance suggests we should look to the United Kingdom as a model for constitutional design. But, of course, the British constitution sits uneasily in contemporary constitutional studies. As an uncodified set of written laws and political practices with ancient roots (e.g., Magna Carta 2015) and modern fruit (e.g., The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011), the constitution is difficult to pin down with precision and certainty. Even senior judges and politicians struggle: Lord Scarman described the constitution as “hidden, and difficult to find” (1993: 319), and Lord Callaghan suggested it has a certain “back of an envelope” quality to it (Hennessy 1995: 6). Academics agree that the specific substantive elements that make up the constitution are subject to debate (Hennessy 2007: 346) as well as that different understandings of the constitution – in Scotland and England, in particular – have coexisted for centuries (Feldman 2005: 347). Yet, even if it were possible to extrapolate a modern model from this historically contingent and idiosyncratic system, an antecedent question niggles: How confident should we be in this positive assessment of the United Kingdom's constitutional success? A closer look at life in the British state uncovers roiling constitutional politics. Complaints abound of constitutional uncertainty, constitutional malaise, constitutional anomie – even constitutional crisis (Bogdanor 2015; Webber 2014). This discourse reveals a higher level of dissatisfaction than might be expected in a country that otherwise seems a paragon of constitutional success.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAssessing Constitutional Performance
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages393-420
Number of pages28
ISBN (Electronic)9781316651018
ISBN (Print)9781107154797
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

constitution
flexibility
anomie
social welfare
complaint
parliament
nation state
politician
public sector
act
uncertainty
health care
democracy
citizen
Law
politics
discourse
performance
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Delaney, E. F. (2016). Stability in flexibility: A British lens on constitutional success. In Assessing Constitutional Performance (pp. 393-420). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316651018.014
Delaney, Erin F. / Stability in flexibility : A British lens on constitutional success. Assessing Constitutional Performance. Cambridge University Press, 2016. pp. 393-420
@inbook{fd8270d74b5348e4bc3a50496ec7a921,
title = "Stability in flexibility: A British lens on constitutional success",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION On many of the external metrics outlined in the Introduction to this volume, the United Kingdom ranks among the most successful nation states: It is a functioning democracy with robust rights protection; its public sector is one of the least corrupt; and its citizens benefit from an array of public goods, including health care, education, and a variety of other social welfare programs. From an internal perspective, the flexible British constitution appears well matched to the wants of its citizenry – as J.A.G. Griffith wrote more than thirty-five years ago, “the constitution is no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also” (Griffith 1979: 19). In short, there is no obvious gap between the aspirational and the actual. This exceptional performance suggests we should look to the United Kingdom as a model for constitutional design. But, of course, the British constitution sits uneasily in contemporary constitutional studies. As an uncodified set of written laws and political practices with ancient roots (e.g., Magna Carta 2015) and modern fruit (e.g., The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011), the constitution is difficult to pin down with precision and certainty. Even senior judges and politicians struggle: Lord Scarman described the constitution as “hidden, and difficult to find” (1993: 319), and Lord Callaghan suggested it has a certain “back of an envelope” quality to it (Hennessy 1995: 6). Academics agree that the specific substantive elements that make up the constitution are subject to debate (Hennessy 2007: 346) as well as that different understandings of the constitution – in Scotland and England, in particular – have coexisted for centuries (Feldman 2005: 347). Yet, even if it were possible to extrapolate a modern model from this historically contingent and idiosyncratic system, an antecedent question niggles: How confident should we be in this positive assessment of the United Kingdom's constitutional success? A closer look at life in the British state uncovers roiling constitutional politics. Complaints abound of constitutional uncertainty, constitutional malaise, constitutional anomie – even constitutional crisis (Bogdanor 2015; Webber 2014). This discourse reveals a higher level of dissatisfaction than might be expected in a country that otherwise seems a paragon of constitutional success.",
author = "Delaney, {Erin F}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781316651018.014",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107154797",
pages = "393--420",
booktitle = "Assessing Constitutional Performance",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Delaney, EF 2016, Stability in flexibility: A British lens on constitutional success. in Assessing Constitutional Performance. Cambridge University Press, pp. 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316651018.014

Stability in flexibility : A British lens on constitutional success. / Delaney, Erin F.

Assessing Constitutional Performance. Cambridge University Press, 2016. p. 393-420.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Stability in flexibility

T2 - A British lens on constitutional success

AU - Delaney, Erin F

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - INTRODUCTION On many of the external metrics outlined in the Introduction to this volume, the United Kingdom ranks among the most successful nation states: It is a functioning democracy with robust rights protection; its public sector is one of the least corrupt; and its citizens benefit from an array of public goods, including health care, education, and a variety of other social welfare programs. From an internal perspective, the flexible British constitution appears well matched to the wants of its citizenry – as J.A.G. Griffith wrote more than thirty-five years ago, “the constitution is no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also” (Griffith 1979: 19). In short, there is no obvious gap between the aspirational and the actual. This exceptional performance suggests we should look to the United Kingdom as a model for constitutional design. But, of course, the British constitution sits uneasily in contemporary constitutional studies. As an uncodified set of written laws and political practices with ancient roots (e.g., Magna Carta 2015) and modern fruit (e.g., The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011), the constitution is difficult to pin down with precision and certainty. Even senior judges and politicians struggle: Lord Scarman described the constitution as “hidden, and difficult to find” (1993: 319), and Lord Callaghan suggested it has a certain “back of an envelope” quality to it (Hennessy 1995: 6). Academics agree that the specific substantive elements that make up the constitution are subject to debate (Hennessy 2007: 346) as well as that different understandings of the constitution – in Scotland and England, in particular – have coexisted for centuries (Feldman 2005: 347). Yet, even if it were possible to extrapolate a modern model from this historically contingent and idiosyncratic system, an antecedent question niggles: How confident should we be in this positive assessment of the United Kingdom's constitutional success? A closer look at life in the British state uncovers roiling constitutional politics. Complaints abound of constitutional uncertainty, constitutional malaise, constitutional anomie – even constitutional crisis (Bogdanor 2015; Webber 2014). This discourse reveals a higher level of dissatisfaction than might be expected in a country that otherwise seems a paragon of constitutional success.

AB - INTRODUCTION On many of the external metrics outlined in the Introduction to this volume, the United Kingdom ranks among the most successful nation states: It is a functioning democracy with robust rights protection; its public sector is one of the least corrupt; and its citizens benefit from an array of public goods, including health care, education, and a variety of other social welfare programs. From an internal perspective, the flexible British constitution appears well matched to the wants of its citizenry – as J.A.G. Griffith wrote more than thirty-five years ago, “the constitution is no more and no less than what happens. Everything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also” (Griffith 1979: 19). In short, there is no obvious gap between the aspirational and the actual. This exceptional performance suggests we should look to the United Kingdom as a model for constitutional design. But, of course, the British constitution sits uneasily in contemporary constitutional studies. As an uncodified set of written laws and political practices with ancient roots (e.g., Magna Carta 2015) and modern fruit (e.g., The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011), the constitution is difficult to pin down with precision and certainty. Even senior judges and politicians struggle: Lord Scarman described the constitution as “hidden, and difficult to find” (1993: 319), and Lord Callaghan suggested it has a certain “back of an envelope” quality to it (Hennessy 1995: 6). Academics agree that the specific substantive elements that make up the constitution are subject to debate (Hennessy 2007: 346) as well as that different understandings of the constitution – in Scotland and England, in particular – have coexisted for centuries (Feldman 2005: 347). Yet, even if it were possible to extrapolate a modern model from this historically contingent and idiosyncratic system, an antecedent question niggles: How confident should we be in this positive assessment of the United Kingdom's constitutional success? A closer look at life in the British state uncovers roiling constitutional politics. Complaints abound of constitutional uncertainty, constitutional malaise, constitutional anomie – even constitutional crisis (Bogdanor 2015; Webber 2014). This discourse reveals a higher level of dissatisfaction than might be expected in a country that otherwise seems a paragon of constitutional success.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047997608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047997608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781316651018.014

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781316651018.014

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85047997608

SN - 9781107154797

SP - 393

EP - 420

BT - Assessing Constitutional Performance

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

Delaney EF. Stability in flexibility: A British lens on constitutional success. In Assessing Constitutional Performance. Cambridge University Press. 2016. p. 393-420 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316651018.014