Comparing constitutional arrangements

Welcome to Comparing Constitutional Arrangements!

Think of a constitution as the "rulebook" for a country. It decides who has power, how they get it, and what they are allowed to do with it. In this chapter, we are going to look at the massive differences and surprising similarities between the rulebooks of the UK and the USA. This is the foundation for everything else you will study in Paper 2, so getting these basics right is key!

1. Codified vs. Uncodified: The Form of the Rulebook

The biggest difference between the two systems is how the rules are written down.

The USA: A Codified Constitution
The US Constitution is codified, meaning it is written down in one single, authoritative document. It was created in 1787 and is the "supreme law of the land." If a law contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution wins. It is also entrenched, which means it is very hard to change (requiring a difficult amendment process).

The UK: An Uncodified Constitution
The UK constitution is uncodified. It isn't found in one single book. Instead, it comes from multiple sources like Statute Law (Acts of Parliament), Common Law, Conventions (traditions), and Authoritative Works. Because it isn't entrenched, it can be changed by a simple majority vote in Parliament.

Key Takeaway: The US constitution is like a stone carving (hard to change, all in one place), while the UK constitution is like a living scrapbook (constantly being added to and easy to edit).

2. Separation of Powers and Checks & Balances

How do we stop one person from becoming a dictator? We split the power up.

Separation of Powers

In the USA, there is a strict separation of powers. You cannot be a member of the Executive (like the President) and the Legislature (Congress) at the same time. These branches are physically and legally separate.

In the UK, there is a fusion of powers. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet must be members of the Legislature (Parliament). The Executive "sits" inside the Legislature.

Checks and Balances

Both systems use checks and balances, but they work differently:

• USA: Very strong. The President can veto laws, Congress can override a veto, and the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional. It is designed to create gridlock to prevent tyranny.
• UK: Based on Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliament is the supreme legal authority. While the courts and the House of Lords can check the government, a Prime Minister with a large majority in the House of Commons can often pass their agenda quite easily.

3. US Federalism vs. UK Devolution

This is a favorite topic for exam questions! It’s about how power is shared between the "center" (DC or London) and the "regions" (States or Scotland/Wales/NI).

US Federalism: This is a structural arrangement where power is divided between the federal government and the states. This power is entrenched in the Constitution (especially the 10th Amendment). The federal government cannot simply "delete" the state of Texas or take away its powers without a constitutional amendment.

UK Devolution: The UK is a unitary state. This means all power technically belongs to the Parliament in Westminster. While Parliament has "devolved" (handed down) powers to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly, it could technically take those powers back because of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Devolution is a process, not a fixed event.

Quick Review: Federalism is a "marriage" (legally binding and hard to break), while Devolution is more like "renting" power (the landlord/Westminster can technically end the lease).

4. Comparing the Legislatures

Both countries have bicameral systems (two chambers), but their strengths vary wildly.

The US Congress:

• Consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
• The two chambers are co-equal in power. A law must pass both in identical form.
• Both houses are directly elected, giving them high legitimacy.

The UK Parliament:

• Consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
• The chambers are unequal. The House of Commons is dominant because it is elected.
• The House of Lords is unelected and can only delay legislation, not block it indefinitely (due to the Parliament Acts).

5. Using Comparative Theories

When you write your essays, you must use these three lenses to explain why the systems are different:

1. Structural Approach: Focuses on the "rules and institutions."
Example: The US President is more constrained than the UK Prime Minister because the structural rule of the US Constitution creates a strict separation of powers.

2. Rational Approach: Focuses on "individuals acting in their own interest."
Example: A US Senator might block a treaty because they are rationally thinking about their own re-election by voters in their specific state.

3. Cultural Approach: Focuses on "history, traditions, and shared values."
Example: The UK lacks a codified Bill of Rights because of a cultural tradition of "liberty under the law" and a historical trust in Parliament to protect rights rather than a single document.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Don't say the UK doesn't have a constitution. It does! It’s just "uncodified" (not all in one place).
Don't confuse Federalism with Devolution. Remember, Federalism is constitutionally protected; Devolution is granted by an Act of Parliament.
Don't forget that Paper 2 requires explicit comparison. Don't just write a paragraph on the UK and then a paragraph on the US. Use connecting words like "similarly," "conversely," or "in contrast to."

Summary Checklist

Note: To see how these constitutional rules affect the leaders or the courts, check out the chapters on "Comparing the Executives" and "Comparing the Judiciaries."