Differentiating Between Written and Unwritten Constitutions

“A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government.” — Thomas Paine

Let’s talk about something that affects all of us, even if we don’t think about it every day — the constitution. It’s the foundation of how a nation is governed, and countries generally follow one of two types: written or unwritten constitutions. What’s the difference? Let’s dive into it with some easy-to-understand explanations and examples.

What Is a Written Constitution?

A written constitution is a formal document that neatly lays out the laws and principles that govern a country. Think of it as a rulebook everyone can read and refer to.

Example of a Written Constitution:

Nepal’s Constitution, enacted in 2015, is a great example. It spells out everything from citizens’ rights to how the government should work.

“The Constitution ought to be the standard of truth for the acts of the government.” — Alexander Hamilton

What makes it special is its clarity. Since it’s all written down, there’s little room for confusion. Anyone can pick it up and know exactly what’s allowed and what isn’t.

What Is an Unwritten Constitution?

An unwritten constitution, on the other hand, isn’t collected in one document. It’s more like a collection of traditions, court decisions, and conventions that have developed over time.

Example of an Unwritten Constitution:

The United Kingdom is the go-to example here. They rely on a mix of historical documents, legal decisions, and age-old traditions to run the country.

This approach is flexible and can adapt to changing times. However, it might feel a bit messy because there’s no single document you can point to and say, “This is our constitution.”

Key Differences Between Written and Unwritten Constitutions

Clarity vs. Complexity

A written constitution is easy to understand because everything is documented in one place. An unwritten one? Not so much. It’s like trying to follow rules that are scattered across a bunch of old books and stories.

Stability vs. Flexibility

Written constitutions, like Nepal’s, provide stability. Changing them often involves a rigorous process, like getting a two-thirds majority in parliament. Unwritten constitutions are more flexible, evolving naturally with societal changes, but that flexibility can lead to instability.

Historical Relevance

Countries with diverse populations and histories of struggle for unity, like Nepal, often choose written constitutions for their clarity and inclusiveness. Countries like the UK, with a long history of traditions, rely on their unwritten constitutions to maintain continuity.

Why Does Nepal Have a Written Constitution?

Nepal is a country rich in diversity. Its written constitution acts as a unifying document, ensuring that everyone’s rights are protected and clearly defined. It also holds the government accountable, which is essential in a democracy.

Did You Know? The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, is the oldest written constitution still in use today.

Wrapping It Up

Both written and unwritten constitutions have their perks and challenges. A written one, like Nepal’s, brings clarity and stability, making life easier for its citizens. Meanwhile, an unwritten one’s adaptability works well for countries with deep-rooted traditions, like the UK.

Ultimately, a constitution — whether written or unwritten — reflects the hopes, values, and needs of the people it governs. As we’ve seen, it’s not just a set of rules but a blueprint for the nation’s future.