Most countries in the world have a constitution but not necessarily a single written text for instance the UK, Israel and New Zealand. Hence, the notion for having one now. The closest the UK got to a written constitution was Magna Carta 1215. It has been debated that unwritten constitution is inaccurate in a sense that uncodified constitution means that it is written in numerous forms of official document but it is not in a single document. The UK constitution is unwritten or uncodified (‘lower case c’ constitution). Some say it does not even exist. Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy n America Vol 1, pt 1, ch …show more content…
He said this in relation to the devolution of Scotland whereby it provides details, clarity and certainty.
In addition, the written constitution is said to have elective dictatorship over the power among executive, legislative and judiciary as currently are without a written constitution, the Prime Minister and Cabinet along with the Queen, House of Lords and House of Commons have the ultimate power. Such situations are crucial as a written constitution can limit their power. That being said, as long as the written constitution is clear, it can prevent arbitrary and volatile changes. However, a written constitution has its disadvantages. It is inflexible and cannot easily cope with changes taking place in the country. It would be an arduous task to modify a written constitution especially when there is a crisis or a new situation such as terrorist attacks from Syria or the 9/11 attack in which the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001 was introduced, which have since been replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The rules and regulations of such countries would just be created in accordance with the social and political aspect arising as time passes. To overcome this problem, the written constitution