Comparative approaches and the UK constitution: the purpose and methods of comparative politics, the nature of the UK's uncodified, unentrenched constitution, the sources and principles of the UK constitution, and how this provides the baseline for comparison with the USA or the Republic of Ireland.

What this dot point is asking

You need to explain the purpose and methods of comparative politics, the nature of the UK constitution (uncodified, unentrenched and flexible), its sources and principles, and how the UK provides the baseline against which the USA (Option A) or the Republic of Ireland (Option B) is compared. The CCEA A2 1 paper rewards an understanding of comparison itself and precise knowledge of the UK's distinctive constitution.

Why we compare political systems

Comparison is powerful but must be handled with care. Its strengths are that it sharpens understanding of each system (you see the UK more clearly when set beside the USA), avoids treating one country as the norm, and provides evidence for judgements about what works. Its limits are that systems are products of different histories, cultures and circumstances, so apparent similarities can be misleading (the danger of false equivalence), and the choice of what to compare and how to weight it is itself a judgement.

The nature of the UK constitution

These features are best understood by contrast. A codified constitution (like the USA's or Ireland's) is a single, authoritative written document; an entrenched constitution is protected by a special, harder amendment procedure. The UK's constitution is neither, so it is unusually adaptable but offers weaker protection for fundamental rules, because a simple parliamentary majority can change them.

The sources of the UK constitution

Because it is uncodified, the UK constitution draws on several sources:

• Statute law. Acts of Parliament of constitutional importance, such as the Parliament Acts and the devolution Acts.
• Common law. Principles and rights developed by judges through case law, and the prerogative powers.
• Conventions. Long-established, binding-in-practice but non-legal rules, such as collective responsibility and the monarch granting Royal Assent.
• Authoritative works. Respected texts (for example Erskine May) that codify parliamentary practice.
• Treaties and (historically) European law. International obligations, including the period of EU membership.

The key principles

Two principles underpin the UK constitution:

• Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is the supreme law-making body: it can make or unmake any law, no Parliament can bind its successor, and no body (in traditional theory) can override an Act of Parliament. This contrasts sharply with the USA and Ireland, where a codified constitution is the supreme law and courts can strike down legislation.
• The rule of law. Everyone, including government, is subject to and equal before the law, and the courts uphold it. This is shared in principle with the USA and Ireland but operates differently without an entrenched constitution.

These principles set up the central comparative contrast: the UK locates supremacy in Parliament, whereas the USA and Ireland locate it in a codified constitution enforced by the courts.

Examples in context

A model A2 paragraph framing the comparison might read: "The natural starting point for comparing the UK with either the United States or the Republic of Ireland is the constitution, because almost every later difference flows from it. The UK's constitution is uncodified, unentrenched and rooted in parliamentary sovereignty, so its fundamental rules can be altered by an ordinary Act and ultimate authority rests with Parliament. Both the United States and Ireland, by contrast, have codified, entrenched constitutions that stand above ordinary law and are protected by special amendment procedures and judicial review. This single structural difference explains why the UK's institutions are more flexible and more centred on the legislature, while the American and Irish systems are more rigid and more shaped by a supreme written text. The comparison, therefore, should begin from the constitution and trace its effects through the legislature, executive and rights." This shows how the constitution anchors the whole comparison.

Try this

Q1. State two features of the UK constitution. [2 marks]

• Cue. Any two of uncodified, unentrenched, flexible, largely unitary, based on parliamentary sovereignty.

Q2. Explain why the UK constitution is described as flexible. [6 marks]

• Cue. It is unentrenched, so it can be changed by an ordinary Act of Parliament with no special amendment procedure, making it easy to amend compared with codified constitutions.

Q3. To what extent does the comparative method help us understand government and politics? [24 marks]

• Cue. Weigh the way comparison reveals the distinctive and the common and tests explanations against the danger of false equivalence between systems shaped by different histories. Reach a substantiated judgement.