Constitutional convention (political custom)

Last updated

A constitutional convention is an informal and uncodified tradition that is followed by the institutions of a state. In some states, notably those Commonwealth of Nations states that follow the Westminster system and whose political systems derive from British constitutional law, most government functions are guided by constitutional convention rather than by a formal written constitution. In these states, actual distribution of power may be markedly different from those the formal constitutional documents describe. In particular, the formal constitution often confers wide discretionary powers on the head of state that, in practice, are used only on the advice of the head of government, and in some cases not at all.

Contents

Some constitutional conventions operate separately from or alongside written constitutions, such as in Canada since the country was formed with the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1867. In others, notably the United Kingdom, which lack a single overarching constitutional document, unwritten conventions are still of vital importance in understanding how the state functions. In most states, however, many old conventions have been replaced or superseded by laws (called codification).

Definitions

The term was first used by British legal scholar A. V. Dicey in his 1883 book, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Dicey wrote that in Britain, the actions of political actors and institutions are governed by two parallel and complementary sets of rules:

The one set of rules are in the strictest sense "laws", since they are rules which (whether written or unwritten, whether enacted by statute or derived from the mass of custom, tradition, or judge-made maxims know[ sic?] as the common law) are enforced by the courts. ... The other set of rules consist of conventions, understandings, habits, or practices thatthough they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power, the Ministry, or other officialsare not really laws, since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the "conventions of the constitution", or constitutional morality. [1]

A century later, Canadian scholar Peter Hogg wrote:

Conventions are rules of the constitution which are not enforced by the law courts. Because they are not enforced by the law courts they are best regarded as non-legal rules, but because they do in fact regulate the working of the constitution they are an important concern of the constitutional lawyer. What conventions do is to prescribe the way in which legal powers shall be exercised. Some conventions have the effect of transferring effective power from the legal holder to another official or institution. Other conventions limit an apparently broad power, or even prescribe that a legal power shall not be exercised at all. [2]

Origins

Constitutional conventions arise when the exercise of a certain type of power, which is not prohibited by law, arouses such opposition that it becomes impossible, on future occasions, to engage in further exercises of this power. For example, the constitutional convention that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot remain in office without the support of a majority of votes the House of Commons is derived from an unsuccessful attempt by the ministry of Robert Peel to govern without the support of a majority in the House, in 1834–1835.

Enforceability in the courts

Constitutional conventions are not, and cannot be, enforced by courts of law. The primary reason for this, according to the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1981 Patriation Reference, is that, "They are generally in conflict with the legal rules which they postulate and the courts may be bound to enforce the legal rules." [3] More precisely, the conventions make certain acts, which would be permissible under a straightforward reading of the law, impermissible in practice. The court ruled that this conflict between convention and law means that no convention, no matter how well-established or universally accepted, can "crystallize" into law, unless the relevant parliament or legislature enacts a law or constitutional amendment codifying for a convention at which must specify request and consensus' for enactment. [4] This principle is regarded as authoritative in a number of other jurisdictions, including the UK.

Some conventions evolve or change over time. For example, before 1918 the British Cabinet requested a parliamentary dissolution from the monarch, with the Prime Minister conveying the request. Between 1918 and 2011, [5] Prime Ministers requested dissolutions on their own initiative, and were not required to consult members of the Cabinet (although, at the very least, it would have been unusual for the Cabinet not to be aware of the Prime Minister's intention).

However, conventions are rarely ever broken. Unless there is general agreement on the breach, the person who breaches a convention is often heavily criticised, on occasions leading to a loss of respect or popular support.

Examples

Australia

No convention is absolute; all but one (the second) of the above conventions were disregarded in the leadup to or during the constitutional crisis of 1975.

Ignoring constitutional conventions does not always result in a crisis. After the 2010 Tasmanian state election, the Governor of Tasmania rejected the advice of his Premier to appoint the leader of the opposition as Premier because he felt the advice was tendered in bad faith. The Premier went on to form a new government.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Canada

Commonwealth Realms

Denmark

France

Germany

Lebanon

Malaysia

New Zealand

There is a convention that the Prime Minister of New Zealand should not ask for an early election unless they are unable to maintain confidence and supply.[ clarification needed ] By the 1950s, it had also become a convention that elections should be held on the last Saturday of November, or the closest date to this range as possible. There are several times when these conventions have been broken and an election has been held several months earlier:

Norway

Because of the 1814 written constitution's pivotal role in providing independence and establishing democracy in the 19th century, the Norwegian parliament has been very reluctant to change it. Few of the developments in the political system that have been taking place since then have been codified as amendments. This reluctance has been labelled constitutional conservatism. The two most important examples of constitutional conventions in the Norwegian political system are parliamentarism and the declining power of the King.

Spain

Much of Spain's political framework is codified in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, which formalizes the relationship between an independent constitutional monarchy, the government, and the legislature. However, the constitution invests the monarch as the "arbitrator and moderator of the institutions" of government.

Switzerland

The following constitutional conventions are part of the political culture of Switzerland. They hold true at the federal level and mostly so at the cantonal and communal level. Mostly, they aim to reconcile the democratic principle of majority rule with the need to achieve consensus in a nation that is much more heterogeneous in many respects than other nation-states.

United Kingdom

While the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution that is a single document, the collection of legal instruments that have developed into a body of law known as constitutional law has existed for hundreds of years.

As part of this uncodified British constitution, constitutional conventions play a key role. They are rules that are observed by the various constituted parts though they are not written in any document having legal authority; there are often underlying enforcing principles that are themselves not formal and codified. Nonetheless it is very unlikely that there would be a departure of such conventions without good reason, even if an underlying enforcing principle has been overtaken by history, as these conventions also acquire the force of custom. Examples include:

United States

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prime minister</span> Top minister of cabinet and government

A prime minister or chief of cabinet is the head of the cabinet and the leader of the ministers in the executive branch of government, often in a parliamentary or semi-presidential system. Under those systems, a prime minister is not the head of state, but rather the head of government, serving as the principal administrator under either a monarch in a monarchy or a president in a republican form of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prime Minister of Australia</span> Head of government of Australia

The prime minister of Australia is the head of government of the Commonwealth of Australia. The prime minister heads the executive branch of the federal government of Australia and is accountable to federal parliament under the principles of responsible government. The prime minister is the chair of the federal cabinet and the national cabinet and a member of the federal executive council. The current prime minister is Anthony Albanese of the Australian Labor Party, who assumed the office on 23 May 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prime Minister of Canada</span> Head of government of Canada

The prime minister of Canada is the head of government of Canada. Not outlined in any constitutional document, the office exists only per long-established convention. Under the Westminster system, the prime minister governs with the confidence of a majority of the elected House of Commons; as such, the prime minister typically sits as a member of Parliament (MP) and leads the largest party or a coalition of parties. The prime minister is appointed by the monarch's representative, the governor general, and, as first minister, selects other ministers to form the Cabinet and chairs it. Constitutionally, executive authority is vested in the monarch, but, in practice, the powers of the monarch and governor general are nearly always exercised on the advice of the Cabinet, which is collectively responsible to the House of Commons. Canadian prime ministers are appointed to the Privy Council and styled as the Right Honourable, a privilege maintained for life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Westminster system</span> Parliamentary system of government

The Westminster system, or Westminster model, is a type of parliamentary government that incorporates a series of procedures for operating a legislature, first developed in England. Key aspects of the system include an executive branch made up of members of the legislature, and that is responsible to the legislature; the presence of parliamentary opposition parties; and a ceremonial head of state who is separate from the head of government. The term derives from the Palace of Westminster, which has been the seat of the Westminster Parliament in England and later the United Kingdom since the 13th century. The Westminster system is often contrasted with the presidential system that originated in the United States, or with the semi-presidential system, based on the government of France.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Barbados</span>

The politics of Barbados function within a framework of a parliamentary republic with strong democratic traditions; constitutional safeguards for nationals of Barbados include: freedom of speech, press, worship, movement, and association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliament of Canada</span> Canadian federal legislature

The Parliament of Canada is the federal legislature of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, and is composed of three parts: the King, the Senate, and the House of Commons. By constitutional convention, the House of Commons is dominant, with the Senate rarely opposing its will. The Senate reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint and may initiate certain bills. The monarch or his representative, normally the governor general, provides royal assent to make bills into law.

In a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government, a reserve power, also known as discretionary power, is a power that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch or part of the government. Unlike in a presidential system of government, the head of state is generally constrained by the cabinet or the legislature in a parliamentary system, and most reserve powers are usable only in certain exceptional circumstances.

In political science, a constitutional crisis is a problem or conflict in the function of a government that the political constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to resolve. There are several variations to this definition. For instance, one describes it as the crisis that arises out of the failure, or at least a strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions. The crisis may arise from a variety of possible causes. For example, a government may want to pass a law contrary to its constitution; the constitution may fail to provide a clear answer for a specific situation; the constitution may be clear but it may be politically infeasible to follow it; the government institutions themselves may falter or fail to live up to what the law prescribes them to be; or officials in the government may justify avoiding dealing with a serious problem based on narrow interpretations of the law. Specific examples include the South African Coloured vote constitutional crisis in the 1950s, the secession of the southern U.S. states in 1860 and 1861, the dismissal of the Australian federal government in 1975 and the 2007 Ukrainian crisis. While the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a codified constitution, it is deemed to have an uncodified one, and issues and crises in the UK and its constituent countries are described as constitutional crises.

A motion or vote of no confidence is a formal expression by a deliberative body as to whether an officeholder is deemed fit to continue to occupy their office. The no-confidence vote is a defining feature of parliamentary democracy which allows the elected parliament to either affirm their support or force the ousting of the cabinet. Systems differ in whether such a motion may be directed against the prime minister only or against individual cabinet ministers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">President of Pakistan</span> Head of state of Pakistan

The president of Pakistan is the head of state of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The president is the nominal head of the executive and the supreme commander of the Pakistan Armed Forces. Presidency is a ceremonial position in Pakistan. President is bound to act on advice of Prime Minister and cabinet. Arif Alvi is the 13th and current president, in office since 9 September 2018.

The Government of Canada is the body responsible for the federal administration of Canada. The term Government of Canada refers specifically to the executive, which includes ministers of the Crown and the federal civil service ; it is alternatively known as His Majesty's Government and is corporately branded as the Government of Canada. There are over 100 departments and agencies, as well as over 300,000 persons employed in the Government of Canada. These institutions carry out the programs and enforce the laws established by the Parliament of Canada.

Dissolution of a legislative assembly is the simultaneous termination of service of all of its members, in anticipation that a successive legislative assembly will reconvene later with possibly different members. In a democracy, the new assembly is chosen by a general election. Dissolution is distinct on the one hand from abolition of the assembly, and on the other hand from its adjournment or prorogation, or the ending of a legislative session, any of which begins a period of inactivity after which it is anticipated that the same members will reassemble. For example, the "second session of the fifth parliament" could be followed by the "third session of the fifth parliament" after a prorogation, but would be followed by the "first session of the sixth parliament" after a dissolution.

The Australian Government, also known as the Commonwealth Government, is the national government of Australia, a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The government consists of the parliamentary members of the party or coalition that currently has the support of a majority of members of the House of Representatives and in some contexts also includes the departments and other executive bodies ministers oversee. The current government consists of Anthony Albanese and other Australian Labor Party parliamentarians, in place since the 2022 federal election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Australia</span> Political system of Australia

The politics of Australia operates under the written Australian Constitution, which sets out Australia as a constitutional monarchy, governed via a parliamentary democracy in the Westminster tradition. Australia is also a federation, where power is divided between the federal government and the states and territories. The monarch, currently King Charles III, is the head of state and is represented locally by the Governor-General of Australia, while the head of government is the Prime Minister of Australia, currently Anthony Albanese.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Government</span> Central government of New Zealand

The New Zealand Government is the central government through which political authority is exercised in New Zealand. As in most other parliamentary democracies, the term "Government" refers chiefly to the executive branch, and more specifically to the collective ministry directing the executive. Based on the principle of responsible government, it operates within the framework that "the [King] reigns, but the government rules, so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives". The Cabinet Manual describes the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the conduct and operation of the Government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government of Malaysia</span> Federal government of Malaysia

The Government of Malaysia, officially the Federal Government of Malaysia, is based in the Federal Territory of Putrajaya, with the exception of the legislative branch, which is located in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia is a federation comprising the 11 States of Malaya, the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak, and 3 Federal Territories operating within a constitutional monarchy under the Westminster system and is categorised as a representative democracy. The federal government of Malaysia adheres to and is created by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the supreme law of the land.

A term of office, electoral term, or parliamentary term is the length of time a person serves in a particular elected office. In many jurisdictions there is a defined limit on how long terms of office may be before the officeholder must be subject to re-election. Some jurisdictions exercise term limits, setting a maximum number of terms an individual may hold in a particular office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Australia</span> Supreme law of Australia

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law of Australia. It is a written constitution that sets down the political structure of Australia as a federation under a constitutional monarchy governed with a parliamentary system and outlines the structure and powers of the Commonwealth of Australia's three constituent parts: the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law as belonging to the sovereign, and which have become widely vested in the government. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out.

The United Kingdom has an uncodified constitution. The constitution consists of legislation, common law, Crown prerogative and constitutional conventions. Conventions may be written or unwritten. They are principles of behaviour which are not legally enforceable, but form part of the constitution by being enforced on a political, professional or personal level. Written conventions can be found in the Ministerial Code, Cabinet Manual, Guide to Judicial Conduct, Erskine May and even legislation. Unwritten conventions exist by virtue of long-practice or may be referenced in other documents such as the Lascelles Principles.

References

  1. AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th edition, pp. 23-24.
  2. Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, p. 7.
  3. Supreme Court of Canada, Attorney General of Manitoba et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (September 28, 1981)
  4. "Manuel v Attorney General [1982] EWCA Civ 4 (30 July 1982)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  5. The prerogative power of the Crown to dissolve Parliament was abolished with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.
  6. McGregor, Janyce (11 June 2012). "Feeling confident about the budget vote?". CBC News . Archived from the original on April 17, 2013. Retrieved 12 May 2013. In 1968, Lester Pearson was prime minister, presiding over a minority Liberal government. Pearson governed largely with the support of the NDP, but in February the Liberals unexpectedly lost a final Commons vote over an amendment to the Income Tax Act. A strict reading of parliamentary convention would have suggested that vote was enough to trigger an election, because the change constituted a "money bill." But the Liberals were in the process of selecting a new leader, and Pearson gambled that no one really wanted an election right away. Pearson went on television and told Canadians that his government would put a second vote before the House of Commons specifically asking whether or not his government continued to command the confidence of the House of Commons, rather than the merits or demerits of a tax change. His gamble worked: his party won the second, more specific vote and carried on governing.
  7. "Constitution Act, 1867". The Solon Law Archive. V.58. 29 March 1867. Retrieved 15 January 2009.
  8. "Klage der beiden Bundestagsabgeordneten gegen Bundestagsauflösung erfolglos" [Action by two Members of Parliament against dissolution of the Bundestag unsuccessful] (in German). German Federal Constitutional Court.
  9. Starck, Christian (2005). "BVerfG, 25. 8. 2005 – 2 BvE 4/05 und 7/05. Die Auflösung des Bundestages" [Federal Constitutional Court, 25 August 2005 – 2 BcE 4/05 and 7/05. Dissolution of the Bundestag]. JuristenZeitung. 60 (21): 1049–1056. JSTOR   20827991.
  10. "www.bundespraesident.de: Der Bundespräsident / Reden / Auflösung des 15. Deutschen Bundestages - Fernseh- ansprache von Bundespräsident Horst Köhler".
  11. Hinck, Gunnar (26 December 2017). "Steinmeier und seine SPD-Mitgliedschaft: In himmlischer Ruh". Die Tageszeitung: Taz.
  12. Rudzio, Wolfgang (3 April 2008). "Informelles Regieren – Koalitionsmanagement der Regierung Merkel" [Informal governance: coalition management of the Merkel government]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (in German).
  13. "Fragen an Stefan Marx zu seiner Edition über den Kreßbronner Kreis" [Questions for Stefan Marx on his edition about the Kressbronn Circle]. Parlamentarismus (in German). 23 March 2014. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2021.
  14. "Österreichs Proporz - Modell für Bonn?" [Austria's proportional representation – a model for Bonn?]. Der Spiegel (in German). 11 April 1961.
  15. Parliamentary briefing – the Privy Council Archived 2010-06-15 at the Wayback Machine , accessed 20 June 2012
  16. "Election 2005 – Election Map". BBC News.

Bibliography