In this article you will learn about the Difference Between Rigid and Flexible Constitution in Political Science.
Difference Between Rigid and Flexible Constitution
The distinction between rigid and flexible constitutions, unlike the distinction between written and unwritten constitutions, is a real one.
While explaining the difference between the two, E.M. Sait says that, “The Flexible Constitution places constitutional law and ordinary law on the same level, in the sense that both are enacted in the same way and both proceed from the same source. And the Rigid Constitution possesses a special and higher status, standing above the ordinary law and being more difficult to change.” Garner clarifies that, “Flexible Constitution is the one which does not have a higher status than the ordinary laws, which can be changed in the same way as ordinary laws. A Rigid Constitution is legally superior to ordinary laws. It can be amended in a way which is different from the way in which ordinary laws can be changed. The method of amendment is difficult. The amendments can be made only by a special procedure, requiring the passing of the amending proposal by a big majority of votes in the legislature”.
While discussing the difference between a rigid and a flexible constitution, we would like to disagree with the views which hold that a flexible constitution is an unwritten constitution and a rigid constitution is a written constitution. A flexible constitution can be written or unwritten and not necessarily an unwritten one. Likewise, a rigid constitution is not always a written constitution. Indian Constitution is a written constitution and yet it has been working as a flexible constitution with 102 Amendments made till date. Britain has an unwritten constitution and yet it has reflected a degree of rigidity in its operations. The passing of the First Reforms Act, 1832 became possible only after a great deal of efforts, involving securing of people’s mandate in elections.
As such the difference between rigid and flexible constitutions is not that of the unwritten or written character but in respect of the nature of their amending process. A flexible constitution can be amended easily while a rigid constitution can be amended by a difficult process.
In actual practice, a constitution works at times as a rigid constitution or a flexible constitution and it depends upon the nature of distribution of political power at a given time. For example the Constitution of the UK is flexible, rather the most flexible constitution in the world. However, in reality amendment making has been at times a difficult exercise. For example, in 1832 the First Reforms Act could be passed only after holding several sessions of the parliament and holding of three general elections to the British House of Commons.
Likewise, the Indian Constitution has been relatively a rigid constitution because there is a definite procedure by which the constitution can be amended. Some of its parts can be amended by a very difficult procedure as laid down in its Article 368. However, during 1950-1990 it worked as a flexible constitution and as many as 78 amendments were incorporated in it. Behind this flexibility was a political fact i.e. the dominant position of the Congress in Indian politics and the presence of large Congress majorities in successive Parliaments and a large number of state legislatures.
This article on Difference Between Rigid and Flexible Constitution in Political Science is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.