Here I will show you all available classifications of the constitution.
In the intricate tapestry of legal systems that govern nations worldwide, constitutions stand as the foundational pillars upon which the entire edifice of governance is built.
These crucial documents serve as a compass, guiding societies through the complexities of the law and providing a blueprint for the exercise of power.
However, not all constitutions are created equal, and their diverse structures and classifications play a pivotal role in shaping the nature of governance in each jurisdiction.
This post aims to deepen our understanding of the essential Classification of a constitution that underpins the rule of law across the globe.
Let’s get started
Table of Contents
Classification of constitutions
Constitutions, the backbone of a country’s legal system, come in various shapes and sizes.
The classification of constitutions is based on different criteria, offering insight into how they function and organize power.
Here are some common classifications:
- Written or Un-written constitutions
- Flexible or Rigid constitutions
- Presidential or Parliamentary constitutions
- Unitary or Federal constitutions
- Monarchical or Republican constitutions
Written Constitutions
A constitution takes the form of being “written” when its fundamental principles and laws are consolidated into a single document.
This written constitution model is widespread globally, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom, which relies on an unwritten constitution composed of statutes, conventions, and historical documents.
The genesis of the written constitution
The genesis of the written constitution concept can be traced back to the revolutionary fervor of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe.
During this transformative period, marked by widespread uprisings challenging traditional aristocratic, colonial, and religious regimes, the idea of encapsulating a nation’s governing principles in a single, comprehensive document gained traction.
The aftermath of events like the French Revolution in 1789 witnessed a global trend where nations, either in reaction to despised past regimes or to commemorate pivotal events like independence from colonial rule, adopted written constitutions as a symbol of their commitment to new beginnings.
Significance of a written constitution
Highlighting the political significance of a constitution as a single, foundational document, the radical thinker Tom Paine emphasized its precedence over government.
He contended that a constitution is not a mere act of a government but a product of the people constituting a government.
Paine argued that a government without a constitution represents power without a rightful basis.
A key argument in favor of written constitutions is their potential to prevent the concentration of power within a single organ of government.
By embracing the principle of separation of powers, a written constitution allocates legislative, executive, and judicial powers to distinct branches, aiming to ensure a system of checks and balances.
This nuanced approach seeks to safeguard against the abuse of power and promotes a more balanced and accountable governance structure.
Common characteristics of a written constitution
While the adoption of written constitutions varies across countries, with differences in form, purpose, and content, there are common characteristics identified by constitutional scholars like De Smith.
- A written constitution typically serves as the fundamental law of the land, functioning as a higher law.
- It designates and empowers principal organs of government, defining the scope of their authority and establishing the procedures for exercising that power.
- Essentially, a written constitution becomes the legal source of legitimate authority, representing the law behind the law.
Un-written constitutions
In simpler terms, when we talk about an unwritten constitution, it’s like saying the rules of the game aren’t all neatly written down in one big instruction book.
Instead, they’re scattered around in different places, like rulebooks, game records, and referee guidelines.
Therefore An unwritten constitution means a constitution that is found in various writings- in statutes, law reports, parliamentary standing orders work authority, and so on, although
the authoritative and reasonably comprehensive document called the ‘Constitution’ is lacking.
So, take the United Kingdom, for example.
They don’t have a single, massive rulebook called a ‘Constitution.’
Instead, their constitution is like a puzzle made up of bits and pieces found in various writings – laws, court decisions, and even the way their parliament does things.
It’s like playing a game where you learn the rules not just from a rulebook, but also by watching how others play and what the referees say.
The key idea here is that the UK believes strongly in something called the ‘legislative supremacy of the parliament.’
Fancy term, right?
But all it means is that when it comes to making rules, the UK Parliament is the boss.
Whatever they say goes.
So, Acts of Parliament (their way of writing down rules) and decisions made by judges become super important in figuring out how things should be done.
Picture it like a giant chess game.
The Parliament makes the moves, and the judges make sure everyone is playing by the rules.
There might not be one big rulebook, but by looking at all these different bits and pieces, you can understand how the game is meant to be played in the UK.
It’s a unique way of doing things, and that’s what makes their unwritten constitution special!
Flexible constitution
A flexible constitution is a type of constitution that is simple to amend.
Unlike the stringent processes mandated by rigid constitutions, any modifications to a flexible constitution do not necessitate navigating a maze of intricate steps or obtaining extraordinary approvals.
In simpler terms, making changes to a flexible constitution is like updating the rules of a game without needing a lengthy and complicated approval process. The United Kingdom is an example.
The ease of amending a flexible constitution is rooted in its adaptability, allowing the legal framework to evolve in response to societal needs, changing circumstances, or the collective will of the people.
Rigid constitution
A rigid constitution is characterized by the requirement of a specific and often more elaborate procedure for any amendments to its provisions.
This distinctive feature aims to safeguard the fundamental principles and values enshrined in the constitution, ensuring that changes are not made hastily or without due consideration.
This special procedure commonly involves the use of a referendum, a mechanism by which the entire population of a nation or a specific region directly votes on a particular political question.
In simpler terms, it’s like asking all the people if they agree to tweak the rules of the game.
For instance, let’s take a peek at the Tanzanian constitution.
It’s a prime example of a rigid constitution, and to make any changes to it, you need to go through a specific process outlined in Article 98 of the constitution.
This ensures that the Tanzanian people have a say in any alterations to their foundational laws.
However, as pointed out by De Smith, it’s not just about the formal procedure for amending the Constitution.
The rigidity or flexibility of a written constitution isn’t solely determined by the complexity of the amendment process. De Smith brings up a fascinating point – a constitution may seem rigid because of a cumbersome amendment procedure, but in reality, it could be quite flexible if there’s little opposition to the ruling party.
In some cases, even modern states with seemingly strict procedures might have a level of flexibility due to authoritarian regimes holding sway.
In essence, according to De Smith, the flexibility of a constitution is more like a spectrum, not a black-and-white distinction.
It’s influenced by various factors, including the effectiveness of opposition forces and the political dynamics at play.
So, the next time we think about constitutional flexibility, it’s not just about the rules on paper but also about the real-world conditions that shape the application of those rules.
Presidential Constitution
In a Presidential constitution, the President assumes a dual role as both the head of the state and the head of the executive branch, embodying a separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.
Taking a closer look at Tanzania, we find a compelling example of a Presidential system in action.
In Tanzania’s political landscape, the President serves as the ceremonial head of state, representing the unity and continuity of the nation.
Simultaneously, the President holds significant executive powers, overseeing the administration and implementation of laws.
This dual role underscores the principle of checks and balances, preventing an accumulation of power within a single branch of government.
Tanzania’s Presidential system is characterized by the direct election of the President by the citizens, who, once elected, serve a fixed term.
The President appoints ministers to the cabinet, who are responsible for specific areas of governance, creating a clear line of authority within the executive branch.
The absence of the President from the legislative body in this system helps maintain an impartial and distinct executive function.
It encourages a level of independence for the President to execute the laws without direct involvement in the day-to-day legislative affairs.
This separation of powers aims to foster a system in which each branch acts as a check on the others, promoting accountability and preventing the concentration of authority in any single institution.
Tanzania’s experience with a Presidential constitution provides valuable insights into how such systems can contribute to stable governance, allowing for the effective administration of laws while safeguarding against the potential abuse of power.
Parliamentary Constitutions
In a Parliamentary constitution, the dynamics of governance are distinctive, with the executive branch led by the Prime Minister, who not only serves as the head of the government but is also an active member of the legislature.
This unique combination of roles underscores a direct accountability to the legislative body, as the Prime Minister is responsible for steering the ship of state while actively participating in the lawmaking process within the parliament.
Unlike Presidential systems where the head of state and head of government roles are often separate, in a Parliamentary setup, the ceremonial head of state, which may be a President, Queen, or King, holds a symbolic position.
This individual remains detached from the day-to-day affairs of governance and is more of a representative figure, embodying the unity and continuity of the nation.
One notable example of a country with a Parliamentary constitution is the United Kingdom.
Here’s an overview of how the Parliamentary system operates in the UK:
The Head of State: The United Kingdom has a constitutional monarchy, and the monarch (Queen or King) serves as the ceremonial head of state.
The Head of Government: The Prime Minister is the head of the government and the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, the lower house of the UK Parliament. The Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch but must command the support of the majority in the House of Commons to govern effectively.
The Legislature: The UK Parliament is bicameral, consisting of two houses—the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Members of the House of Commons (Members of Parliament or MPs) are elected by the public, while members of the House of Lords are appointed, hereditary, or hold certain positions by virtue of their office.
Executive and Legislative Connection: The Prime Minister, who is part of the executive branch, is also a member of the House of Commons. This dual role fosters a close connection between the executive and legislative branches, as the Prime Minister is directly accountable to Parliament and can be questioned by MPs.
Cabinet: The Prime Minister is supported by the Cabinet, which is composed of senior government ministers chosen from members of Parliament. Cabinet members are responsible for specific government departments and play a key role in decision-making.
Role of the Monarch: While the monarch’s role is largely ceremonial, they have certain constitutional duties, such as the formal approval of legislation (Royal Assent) and the dissolution of Parliament for general elections.
The UK’s Parliamentary constitution reflects a system where the executive and legislative branches are intertwined, providing a dynamic and responsive form of governance with mechanisms for accountability and representation.
Federal Constitution
The concept of a federal constitution arises when independent states decide to join forces and create a unified nation while retaining a significant degree of individual identity and autonomy.
This form of political organization is driven by shared interests and common objectives, providing a framework that allows states to collaborate while preserving their unique characteristics.
The United States of America and Nigeria stand as notable examples of countries adopting a federal constitution.
In a federal system, power is purposefully divided between the central or federal government and the governments of the individual states forming the federation.
This distribution of authority ensures that certain matters are handled collectively at the national level, while others are left to the discretion of each state.
It’s like a carefully choreographed dance where everyone knows their steps, creating a balance that fosters unity without sacrificing regional individuality.
One of the distinctive features of a federal constitution is the autonomy granted to individual states in crafting and implementing laws within their own territories.
This means that each state possesses the legislative authority to enact rules that are specifically tailored to address the needs and preferences of its residents.
This localized decision-making power allows for flexibility, recognizing that what works for one state might not necessarily be the best fit for another.
Moreover, within a federal system, each state has the prerogative to draft its own constitution – a set of fundamental principles and rules that guide the governance of that particular state.
This adds another layer of specificity, as states can adapt their foundational laws to reflect their unique histories, cultures, and aspirations.
It’s like having a common rulebook for the entire nation, but with room for individual states to add their own chapters.
In essence, a federal constitution fosters a cooperative spirit among states, enabling them to collaborate on matters of national importance while respecting the diversity that makes each state special.
This delicate balance between unity and diversity is the essence of federalism, and it continues to shape the political landscapes of nations embracing this constitutional model.
Unitary constitution
A Unitary constitution represents a distinctive form of governance where the legislative authority is consolidated within a single central power.
This centralized system stands in contrast to federalism, as it lacks the distribution of legislative powers between different levels of government.
Instead, a Unitary Constitution vests significant authority in a unified national government.
This form of governance is often regarded as a highly developed manifestation of federalism, emphasizing the concentration of power at the central level.
Unlike federal systems, where power is shared between a national government and sub-national entities, a Unitary Constitution places paramount importance on the authority of the central government.
The essence of a Unitary Constitution lies in the voluntary aggregation of independent countries or states, each willingly relinquishing a portion of its sovereignty.
These entities come together to form a union with a shared set of rules and principles, creating a cohesive and integrated national structure.
In this process, the participating states acknowledge the supremacy of the central government in certain matters, ensuring uniformity and consistency in governance across the entire union.
The United Kingdom serves as a compelling example of a Unitary Constitution in action. Within the UK, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have agreed to pool their sovereignty and delegate specific powers to a central government seated in Westminster.
Despite regional variations and distinct legal systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the ultimate authority rests with the UK Parliament.
This centralized approach facilitates efficient decision-making and administration while maintaining a unified legal framework.
A Unitary Constitution embodies a collaborative effort where independent states willingly join forces, forging a union that prioritizes a centralized legislative authority.
The United Kingdom’s governance structure exemplifies the effectiveness and adaptability of the Unitary Constitution in balancing unity and diversity within a nation.
Monarchical Constitution
In constitutional monarchies, the head of state assumes a ceremonial and symbolic role, often held by a monarch such as a king or queen.
This individual serves as a unifying figure for the nation, representing its traditions and continuity.
However, the extent of the monarch’s authority is restricted and delineated by a constitution, ensuring a balance of power within the government.
Take Japan, for instance, where the Emperor serves as a symbolic leader without any governing powers.
The Japanese constitution, established after World War II, clearly defines the Emperor’s role as “the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people.”
The Emperor performs various ceremonial duties, participates in state functions, and plays a role in diplomatic matters, but actual governance lies in the hands of elected officials.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the constitutional monarchy is deeply ingrained in the country’s traditions.
The monarch, such as King Charles III, serves as the ceremonial head of state.
However, the real power is vested in the elected representatives of the people, particularly the Parliament and the Prime Minister.
The British constitution outlines the monarch’s duties and responsibilities, ensuring that governance adheres to democratic principles and the rule of law.
In both Japan and the United Kingdom, the constitutional framework places limitations on the monarch’s involvement in day-to-day political affairs.
This deliberate separation of symbolic and governing functions reflects a commitment to democratic principles, ensuring that political decisions are made by elected representatives accountable to the people.
Constitutional monarchies thus embody a harmonious blend of tradition and modern governance, with the monarch serving as a symbol of national unity while real political authority resides elsewhere.
Republican Constitution
Republican Constitutions embody a distinctive form of governance where the reins of the state are firmly held by elected representatives rather than being passed down through hereditary lines.
In such systems, the head of state is not a monarch but a President, elected by the people or through an electoral process involving representatives.
Take, for example, the United States, where the President serves as both the head of state and head of government.
Through a democratic electoral process, citizens cast their votes to choose a President who will lead the nation for a fixed term.
This elected leader assumes a pivotal role in shaping policies, making executive decisions, and representing the country on the international stage.
The hallmark of Republican Constitutions lies in the emphasis on popular sovereignty, where the authority of the government is derived from the people.
Regular elections allow citizens to voice their preferences, ensuring that those in power are accountable to the electorate.
This contrasts with monarchical systems, where leadership is often predetermined by birthright.
Additionally, Republican Constitutions often include a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power in one branch of government.
The separation of powers, typically dividing responsibilities among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, safeguards against potential abuses and promotes a system where no single entity holds unchecked authority.
Classification of Constitution pdf
Download “Classification of constitution pdf” Membership Required: VIP or VVIP
References
- Alder, J. Constitutional and Administrative Law, 5th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan Publishers, New York, 2005
- De Smith, S. et al, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 7th Edition, Penguin Group, England, 1994
- Paine, T. Rights of Man, (ed. H. Collins), 1969
- Wade E. C. S. and Bradley, A. W. Constitutional and Administrative Law, Longman inc., New York, 1985
