In this article you will learn about the Difference Between Written and Unwritten Constitution in Political Science.
Difference Between Written and Unwritten Constitution
Theoretically, we can make a definite distinction between written and unwritten constitutions. The main points of distinctions are :
- A written constitution is written in the form of a document or book, whereas an unwritten constitution is not written in any such forms.
- A written constitution is a made and enacted constitution and it is made by a Constituent Assembly or a council or convention of the people acting through their representative. An unwritten constitution is the result of a slow and gradual process of constitutional evolution. It is the result of growth. It is not made by any one institution or council.
- A written constitution is generally less flexible than an unwritten constitution. Very often there is a special procedure for amending a written constitution which is laid down in the constitution itself. An unwritten constitution depends mostly on conventions which do not require formal amendments.
- A written constitution is definite and its provisions can be quoted in support or against any power exercised by the government, whereas an unwritten constitution cannot be produced in evidence. It has to be proved by quoting its sources and history of actual working.
Difference Between Written and Unwritten Constitution is neither really rigid nor real
No Constitution is totally written or totally unwritten. The difference between a written and unwritten constitution is not organic. In a written constitution, the written parts are in majority. There are several unwritten parts in the form of conventions. In an unwritten constitution, most of the parts are unwritten in the sense that these are not written in the form of a book or document and these lay scattered in different documents. Along with it, in such a Constitution, conventions regulate most of the organisation and working of the government. The British have an unwritten constitution whereas the USA has a written constitution. However, in both these are present a large number of unwritten conventions which regulate the organisation and working of their political institutions, governments and political processes. “Written Constitutions”, as observed by Bryce, “become developed by interpretations, fringed with decisions and enlarged by customs…” They work with the help of supplementations provided by conventions.
The British Constitution is basically unwritten but several of its parts are written in the form of the Magna Carta 1215, Bill of Rights 1689, Petition of Rights 1628, Act of Settlement 1716, and several other Parliamentary Statutes and Judicial Decisions. The Constitutions of India and the USA are written constitutions but in their actual working several unwritten rules of political behaviour (Conventions) are in operation.
As such no real and organised distinction exists between written and unwritten constitutions. C.F. Strong calls the division between them as false, misleading and illusory. K.C. Wheare opines that the classification of constitutions between written and unwritten should be discarded as there is little distinction between countries with written constitutions and those which have no others. We also accept the merit of such a logic.
In contemporary times almost every democratic state has a written constitution. However, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and few other countries continue to have unwritten constitutions.
This article on Difference Between Written and Unwritten Constitution in Political Science is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.