The Other View

A diligent person could fill the back of a large van with material – all different – relating to the British constitution. Intelligent people have dedicated a life times work to researching and commenting on the subject. Yet nowhere can one read a copy of this statute because it doesn’t exist as such. Britain does not have a written constitution.

Admirers of the British method insist that in practice the U.K. constitution based on tradition and precedent compares favourably with other systems. They point to the plethora of states with fine and extensive written constitutions where rule of law has been overturned at the whim of an authoritarian regime. This is true and it would be possible to argue, for example, that the man on the Baghdad omnibus feels more democratically enhanced than the lady travelling to work by London tube.

Nevertheless, this is a disingenuous argument since it does not compare (or contrast) like with like. To make a proper comparison we should examine the United Kingdom in tandem with France, Germany, Italy or the U.S.A. - in other words with the First World, in G7 countries.

In these, the longer established and more prosperous states, it is possible to make a more accurate assessment. In these countries, the rule of law and the protection of law are supervised by parliament acting in accordance with the constitution. It is possible for those living in France, Germany or the United States to challenge the performance of parliament by reference to a clear and written set of rules. The British subject enjoys no similar luxury.

During relatively harmonious times, this may not appear ominous. A constitution is somewhat like a good football referee who whistles for foul play only when things are not running so smoothly. The problem is that when tested in adversity, the British constitution often proves inadequate. Rights in the U.K. are granted rather than guaranteed. If in doubt, the sceptics should research the 1980’s miners’ strike or the ongoing scandals surrounding Britain’s intelligence agencies.

This is not to say that there is no skulduggery in countries with written constitutions. Of course there is, but such offences are open to constitution scrutiny. In the United States, for example, the CIA has often acted illegally. What such an organisation cannot do is to evade accountability by claiming to give its allegiance to a monarch rather than a constitution.

Historically this issue was at the debate between republicans and monarchists. A debate which posed two questions; should society be ruled by a hereditary monarch governing through his/her favourite courtiers?

Two centuries ago, in the era of absolute monarchy, this was a question of crucial relevance. One century ago it was still an important concern. What is of crucial importance, however, in the modern era and in parliamentary democracies, is not the alternatives offered between absolute monarchy and republican democracy. The vital contemporary issue is the type of constitution, its contents and its ethos.

A constitutional monarchy clearly accepts the primacy of parliament but also makes a powerful statement in favour of the profoundly antidemocratic concept of worth through class and birth. Monarchy with its bloodlines, honours systems and built-in acceptance of privilege and institutionalised inequality provides an apology for the existence and the continuation of political, economic and social injustice.

The reason for the restorations of the feckless Stuarts is interesting and informative. Britain’s merchant class overturned the old commonwealth of Cromwell in order to create a political counterbalance to the egalitarian tendencies at large in England of the time. Dress codes may have changed but the underpinning rationale has not.

In this context, Irish republicanism has the invaluable credential that has not just always rejected the rule of Britain’s monarchy, but all monarchies. Ireland’s republican philosophy has its roots in the concept that the people is sovereign and thus has rejected the imposition of a people’s master.

That said, Irish republicanism is not immune to the influence of local or indigenous factors. The largest and most powerful of such factors has been Irish nationalism. It has long been the case that the establishment of an island wide republican democracy is dependent on breaking the political connection with Great Britain. This has permitted the often-baleful influence of Catholic nationalism to find a hiding place within Irish republicanism. There are, however, two important caveats.

Irish republicanism is most vulnerable to this pressure when it is in retreat and when republicanism ceases to be a radical revolutionary option. The politics of De Valera’s Fianna Fail was not fashioned so much by republican ideology as by the ‘Long Fellow’ coming to terms with the republican defeat in the Irish Civil War. The reality is that we cannot assess the performance of a truly Republican administration since none has yet held effective power in Ireland.

The other caveat is that Irish society is now quite different to that of the past. The influence of Rome and rural life styles is largely gone. Radical Irish republicans are not content with the current climate but they recognise that the days of the confessional mentality are gone forever and that contemporary conditions make attainment of a secular republicanism more feasible than before.

It is the impact though of a different set of conditions that creates both a task and an opportunity for republicans to transform this society not just peacefully but socially as well. The setting to which we refer is the economic climate brought about by globalisation and the political relations caused by the New World Order.

Trade, industry and international relations are very different in the twenty-first century from what we have known previously. Agriculture is no longer profitable on smallholdings and heavy engineering is drifting towards low wage regions. In world politics, Ireland has ceased to be of major strategic importance.

In Short, there is now no clear economic rationale for Ulster unionism and British foreign policy no longer sees it as a defensive necessity. The strongest arguments for a connection between Northern Ireland and Britain are cultural and historic. The most substantial community in the U.S.A. has long shared a similar cultural identity with the English but felt their best interests lay in an independent republic. A comparable view is now gaining strength in Australia. Someday, an all-Ireland republic could prove sufficiently accommodating for all on this island.

There is a very interesting debate underway in the Observer and Guardian newspapers dealing with the subject of the British monarchy with the former newspaper declaring for a British republic. Evidence is that an increasing number of British people support this position. It would be ironic if the last bastion of old-style monarchist elitism happens to be the descendants of those who brought republicanism to these islands.

Back to Contents