Written V Unwritten constitution.

Written V Unwritten constitution.A constitution is a code of rules, both written and unwritten, which outlines the functions, powers and duties of the various institutions of government, regulates the relationship between them, and defines the relationship between the state and the public. The balance between the written (legal) and unwritten (constitutional conventions and practice) varies from country to country, but most countries have a mix of the two. It is common that at least some of these rules are set out in a document or documents that are considered ‘constitutional’.

The word constitution is also used, perhaps more commonly, to describe a single, sovereign, authoritative document known as the Constitution – like the Constitution of the United States, or Australia, or Canada. Such a constitution is often called a written constitution, even though it is usually supplemented by unwritten conventions. The better term is codified. More important is the status of the document as the ultimate, superior law of the land. As such it is usually enforced by the courts using the doctrine of judicial review (which may be applied to the legislature along with other parts of government). It is entrenched, which also makes it difficult to change.

An entrenched constitution often includes a bill or charter of rights. These constitutional documents protect people’s individual rights and freedoms and so define and protect people’s civil rights. Both Canada and the United States have a statement of rights as a part of their constitution, while Australia does not.

New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world with an uncodified, ‘unwritten’ constitution (Israel and the UK are the others). This is a flexible, organic construction that changes over time. Parts of it are written, but it is not found in any one document. It is not entrenched, and Parliament (rather than the constitution) is sovereign. Most experts agree that the courts do not have the power of judicial review.

So on the one hand we have america with a written constitution and with that american society has become entrenched and no matter how much people complain about the government very little changes.

On the other hand an unwritten constitution does not actually mean there is no constitution, only that it is written in many differing legal documents. This allows for society to be able to make changes more easily and allows the governance to change and reflect the needs of society.

All three of the countries that do not have a written constitution are all progressive western style countries. It cannot be said that lacking a written constitution brings about dictatorship or lack of freedom for the people of a country. 

But having a written constitution makes it difficult if not near impossible to make changes thus denying freedom to the next generation to make changes that suite their lives rather than that of their ancestors. 

So which is better, written or unwritten?