The case for a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights should be an integral component of any democratic constitution. Many democracies today have a Bill of Rights embedded within their state constitution. A Bill of Rights, in its simplest sense, defines the various individual liberties prescribed to a state’s citizens. The term may be better described as providing a compatible list of the various ‘rights’ one would likely find within democratic political systems. An obvious example of a Bill of Rights can be found in the US constitution. The Bill includes rights of ‘property’, the infamous ‘right to bear arms’, ‘freedom of speech’ and the ‘press’, ‘trial by jury’, and that all rights not prescribed in the Constitution lie with the citizens. The United States’ Bill of Rights has many flaws and should, arguably, not be a prototype model for any prospective UK version. What the document does show, however, is that these, in all, ten ‘amendments’ serve the purpose to put significant checks on a state’s governance. It is an effective form of democracy; in keeping a government in constraint of constitutional law. This purpose is exactly what is needed in the UK today.

There are many who would disagree with a Bill of Rights for the UK, both at a fundamental and also a contemporary level. The former would argue that the UK’s unwritten constitution has allowed for significant rights to develop, for example, the electoral reform in the 1920s and the newly formed Supreme Court. These may be constrained were a Bill of Rights to be instigated, whereas the current situation allows changes in attitudes, beliefs and norms to adapt to a changing world. The 1960s civil rights movement in the US highlighted how the problems of their Bill of Rights were due to interpretation – a recurring issue with constitutions. The US and other democracies like Spain and Italy have demonstrated that reforming constitutional rights can be problematic, even when they appear most needed.

The contemporary situation of Al Qaeda terrorism, that threatened the UK even before the dreadful events of July 7th 2005, has led to the view that while the UK continues to be threatened by this hidden enemy, a Bill of Rights should not be considered. In a situation where the need for Identification cards and 42 day detention of suspects are being debated; as responses to the terrorist threat, it may be argued that this is not the right environment or time for the introduction of a Bill of Rights.

However, while these criticisms may seem relevant there are counter arguments. In response to the Al Qaeda threat it seems there is a greater need for a Bill of Rights. The debate about the uncertain duration of detention suspects has done little to truly comprehend what can be and what cannot be done in dealing with terrorist suspects. A Bill of Rights has the potential to establish key principles and freedoms for all British citizens. A Bill of Rights will provide a framework for the government to work within and would make it clearer in holding citizens accountable to law should they commit actions in conflict with this. In the face of this terrorist threat now is the time to establish the rights of British citizens in the face of those who wish to see their disruption and destruction.

While a Bill of Rights would be an effective document to hold accountable any citizens and terror suspects it would also be equally effective in holding accountable governments, which was the original purpose of the US constitution. Now, more so than ever, in the light of the expenses scandal, the government and the state should be seen to be serving the people and be accountable to them, something a constitution with a prescribed Bill of Rights would embed. The expenses scandal was a clear example of how, without an effective constitution, politicians can conduct deviant acts relatively free from restraint.

An effective constitution would enable the right checks and balances on the various governmental institutions. It would also have the potential for a currently disillusioned population, to be more involved in politics – an integral part of democracy. A state constitution would speak directly to the people, give them more of a role, and address political apathy: so prevalent in contemporary British politics. The more enhanced the role of the people in British politics the more likely they want to exercise their political rights.

The Bill of Rights is particularly relevant in contemporary British politics, and can no longer be ignored. In the light of these contemporary issues that surround British politics a Bill of Rights is not only desirable but increasingly necessary.

See. Robert Singh’s book Governing America. (Oxford Press, 2003)