The British constitution is like a vintage Rolls Royce, splendid in its day, giving smooth delivery of power to the privileged few, but with brakes not designed for emergencies in today's traffic.
The Scott Report shows how hard it is to stop the juggernaut of government. Parliament had no way of finding out that government policy had changed. Three businessmen who were assured, in great secrecy, that it really had changed, found themselves facing criminal charges. Senior ministers signed a document to prevent the release of papers which proved their innocence, but, by fortunate chance, the judge in the case insisted on seeing the documents for himself, and the three were acquitted.
Written constitution
It is argued that to adopt a formal written constitution would take away our flexibility to adapt to changes. Certainly the American founding fathers would be appalled at the ability of today's US Supreme Court to interpret their written constitution in favour of abortion and against religious liberty.
It is true that the legal guardians of a written constitution can also bend to the secular mood; but at least the issue is out in the open and, if they are wrong, the written constitution can be amended. The overwhelming advantage of a flexible constitution is not to the citizen but to government, who alone have the power to bend it to their own ends.
The Old Testament prophets and our Lord himself argue fiercely for justice and against oppression, in favour of the weak and helpless, and against those who use their power to exploit them. Democracy is the best way so far of putting these beliefs into practice. It embodies the dignity of the individual made in the image of God and makes governments accountable to every citizen. It also gives freedom, so vital to the Christian, to express our views. So we Christians, above all, should makes sure that it works well and cannot be undermined.
But British democracy, which developed haphazardly through three centuries with grudging concessions from the ruling classes, is uniquely vulnerable to subversion. It lacks, not only a written constitution, with a court to enforce it, but also lacks any one of the range of systematic safeguards with which all other democracies now protect their people from the arbitrary power of government.
Uniquely, British governments take power with not much more than 40% of the popular vote and often less. Elsewhere the electoral system forces a government to represent a majority of the voters. So power comes from the ability to coalesce round the centre and prevents a government from being held to ransom by its own party's extremists.
In most other democracies, but most notably in the US, there is also a sharp divide between government and the legislature, so that government whips cannot bribe Members of Parliament (or Congress) with the prospect of office, as they can and do in Britain. The US Senator and Congressman have a great independence in protecting the interest of those who elect them and in enquiring into the behaviour of government.
Concentrated in London
Almost every other constitution gives power to local government, which national government cannot touch. The French government cannot abolish the government of Paris as the British government abolished the government of London. Nor can the German, Canadian, Australian or American governments alter the powers or boundaries of Bavaria, Ontario, New South Wales or Virginia as the British government can diminish and alter our counties and boroughs. In Britain real political power is concentrated in London.
Elsewhere, regional governments are usually represented in a second chamber (all far more powerful than our undemocratic House of Lords), whose assent is required for most legislation.
British governments have not only drained power from Parliament, but also from the Head of State, who, being hereditary, can only rely on a residual moral authority to counter any abuse of governmental power. Even where other democracies do not, like Germany, France or America, have an elected head of state, they have a constitution which gives someone, the Speaker, or the Supreme Court, a role in guarding constitutional rights.
Religious liberty and democracy are interwoven. But today British democracy is under great strain. As the stabilising institutions of marriage and church and state come apart, as unemployment remains stubbornly high, and the police can no long protect large areas of our great cities, our social order unravels. Liberal humanism has loosened the bands of mutual obligation, but cannot put together what it has so carelessly broken.
If the next government does not give us a new constitution, a nationalist, racist, authoritarian successor could still come to power on a minority vote, pledged to restore jobs and white British males, and rule by emergency decree to bring back law and order - and who could stop them?
