written in circumstances which emphasise a radical interpretation
of constitutions. As the document ages, the emphasis may change
to a conservative and legalistic interpretation of them. Britain’s
‘unwritten’ constitution is usually defended as fulfilling the purposes
of written constitutions more effectively than do these, more recent,
documents. This has become a matter for considerable debate in
Britain in recent years, however.
The symbolic role of the constitutional document is often of
considerable importance. The US Constitution, for instance, is treated
with some reverence. The first act of each president is to take an oath
or affirmation that ‘I will faithfully execute the Office of President of
the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States’. The French
Declaration of the Rights of Man has a similar key role in French
political culture.
It is often argued that Britain is unusual in embodying much of its
constitution in ‘conventions’ – generally accepted rules that are not
part of the law but whose breach may rapidly involve the breach
thereof. These are seen as a more flexible way of expressing the
constitution than a written legal document. However, conventions
are, in fact, found in any mature constitutional system. For instance,
in the USA, conventions surrounding the operation of the electoral
college have effectively transformed what the founders intended as
an indirect election of the president into a national popular vote.Rights and constitutions
Most written constitutions incorporate some sort of declaration of the
rights of citizens of the country concerned. However, there is an
important distinction to be drawn between a mere declaration which
is intended as a guide to politicians – and perhaps for judges to
consider in their interpretation of laws – and a justiciable‘Bill of
Rights’ which is seen as a binding part of the constitution, superior in
status to ordinary law and superseding it in case of conflict. A declara-
tion may be of some symbolic political usefulness but a Bill of Rights
is clearly more likely to be directly useful to ordinary citizens who
consider their rights have been taken away or abused by the executive
or legislature.182 DEMOCRACY