As indicated in the earlier section on the constitution, there are different ways in which the constitution may be understood. These are complemented by varied understandings of the subject of reform, of which we may instance four in this context.
First would be the formal enactment of the constitution into a comprehensive and codified form. This may have certain theoretical attractions. It would be likely to produce greater clarity, and might stimulate public interest in basic questions about how we as a people are governed. But equally it would be a very difficult exercise to achieve satisfactorily; it would be very time consuming and most importantly, there would be no guarantee that at the end of the process the constitution would be significantly improved. It could have the effect of increasingly bringing the courts into conflict with the executive. Nor is this option ‘practical politics’ at present.
Second, there is the possibility of a continuing programme of change such as Labour claim to have followed since 1997. As implied above, whether recent changes can be seen as a genuine programme of inter-related change driven by clear principles is debatable. It is not clear, for example, whether the real aim of the changes has been to disperse power through introducing more formal checks and balances, or to enhance the power of the central part of the executive.
Third, particular changes may be made to various parts of the constitution, without necessarily any clear constitutional rationale or intent. Joining the European Union (originally the European Economic Community in 1973) was not intended to be a constitutional change, but over time it has assumed that character as European arrangements have themselves evolved. The rise of judicial activism, especially through judicial review, was not part of a conscious effort to alter the constitution. But again it has had that effect. The unwritten nature of the constitution means that this kind of change is often difficult to discern as well as potentially being profound in its effects.
But there is arguably a fourth level of change of greater importance still. The British constitution depends to an unusual degree on conventions and understandings and these in turn depend upon the attitudes, manners and culture of the people who constitute these nations. As the habits and behaviour of people change so this impacts on the working of the constitution, which in turn adapts to a changed context. Among factors that have altered patterns of behaviour in ways that affect the constitution are: loss of trust; decline in deference; the rise of individualism, secularism, consumerism and corresponding decline in community values; and, of course, the widespread erosion of Christian ethics.
To place emphasis on reform of the constitution is to run the risk that remedies of a superficial kind will be sought for what is a more fundamental malaise. What is needed is a renewal of the roots that nourish the constitution within our society. This involves a more active citizenry inspired by ideals of the common good, not simply organised groups pressing for their own advantage; a more evident spirit of service among political leaders rather than a sense that politicians are merely seeking benefit for themselves; a more intelligent and serious level of public debate rather than tabloid press tantrums. Again, there is a call here for Christians to engage seriously and constructively with the public realm, and to receive encouragement and support as they do so from their churches. The Christian faith is not a private faith; on the contrary, properly understood Christianity demands expression in the public square as well as in every aspect of an individual Christian’s life and work. Those who are employed in so-called secular callings are every bit as much ministers of the gospel as those who enter the ministry or take up so-called ‘full-time Christian service’.
