.png){kind=icon}
‘Until 1997, it could reasonably be said that our Constitution, by which I mean our system of government, was what has been called a historic Constitution. What I mean by that is not merely that it is very old, though it certainly is that, but that it was unplanned; the product of evolution rather than, as it were, human thinking. It just evolved, in a way that so many British institutions have been evolved, and it was very difficult to actually discover what it was.’ (Vernon Bogdanor, Gresham lecture 16th June 2009, available here)
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Vernon Bogdanor raises two key issues here: (1) has the British constitution evolved in an unplanned way; and (2) the difficulty in identifying it. To answer issue (1), consider the way in which the British constitution has developed, as outlined in Chapter 2.
- What are your observations?
- Were developments haphazard, unplanned and reacting to events as they happened, or can you see any themes or patterns emerging, for example the power struggle between monarch and Parliament?
- Remember to give supporting examples for your view.
- Think also about why Professor Bogdanor refers to 1997 as a cut-off point for his argument. Consider the constitutional reforms made after 1997. Was there a clearer element of planning and deliberate change behind them?
To answer issue (2), think about whether, at any given time, the British constitution could be clearly identified (e.g. was it clear how power was allocated and which institution carried out which functions).