Responses on the papers

Chapter 9 Discussion

Great Britain and South Africa

In Shively’s Chapter 9, he explains various ways that states establish the distribution of power and the formal and informal laws that guide the behavior of lawmakers and citizens alike. Though all states’ laws, traditions and needs are different, each state abides by a constitution, whether it is an unwritten constitution, like the example of Great Britain, or a detailed and relatively new constitution, like the example of South Africa. Both of the case studies exemplify the concepts analyzed by Shively in his chapter on “Constitutions and the Design of Government,” by showing that different states with different cultures and histories have very different needs and as a result, very different constitutions.

The concepts covered in Chapter 9 of the textbook that are demonstrated in the examples of constitutions in Great Britain and South Africa include the idea of varying formalities, the messiness of constitution writing, and the differences between a unitary and a federal system. Shively, in his section on “Variations in Formality,” that the importance of a central document varies by state. In older states, there is less focus on a central document and more focus on traditions and statutes that have developed over decades or centuries, while in newer states, there is more focus on central documents, and these central documents tend to be extremely detailed. Shively’s example of Great Britain is relevant because the state does not have a central document. Instead, the British constitution relies on statutes passed by Parliament, judicial precedents, and traditions that have not been written down but are practiced and have not been stopped by Parliament. In contrast, the constitution of South Africa was written between 1990 and 1994 and includes extensive individual protections. The fact that South Africa’s constitution explicitly describes individual rights not only demonstrates that newer states have more detailed constitutions, but also that a states’ constitution reflects its needs and its history. The new government felt that individual protections were necessary as a result of the long standing practice of segregation and oppression of the black majority by the white minority.

While Shively’s section on constitution writing is not necessarily relevant to the case of Great Britain because of its reliance on statutes and precedents that date back as far as 1295, the concept is very relevant to the case of South Africa, where it was necessary to include ethnic groups that had been left out in the previous regime. In the case of South Africa, there were four different groups with different desires and needs that resulted in three years of debate and a considerable amount of violence. The National Party wanted that all ethnic minorities have guaranteed membership in all government institutions, as well as the ability of each group to veto any policies, but the ANC, which was clearly in the majority, wanted no guarantees for minorities. Because of their inability to negotiate a final constitution, in 1993, a temporary constitution was put in place that balanced the needs of the white National Party and the ANC until the fully democratic elections that took place in 1994. In the end, not all groups were satisfied, but the National Party and the ANC, that held most of the seats in the parliament agreed, and so the new constitution was enacted in 1996.

Lastly, these case studies demonstrate the differences between a unitary and a federal system. The United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, passed legislation that made Scotland and Wales slightly more autonomous. However, England is still a unitary government, meaning that the central government has the ultimate authority over all aspects of government; local and regional governments can be overruled by the central government. In South Africa, a federal system has been established that gives nine separate provinces constitutionally explicit powers that cannot be overruled by the central government.