16. Constitutional Contrarians
The notion of the non-constitution has a long but disreputable pedigree. (Vallance, 2010; Horspool 2010)
The controversial idea was first articulated by freethinking dissenters during the Interregnum to whom social and political justice required a constitution. A century later, Thomas Paine (1791) challenged Burke to produce the constitution that he believed in. De Tocqueville (1835) and Engels (1844) remarked on the constitution’s glaring absence during the period of Reform. The Chartists campaigned for guaranteed political rights (Chase, 2007).
In the 20th century, Nairn (1964, 1981) and Anderson (1964) regarded the so-called constitution as a bourgeois illusionists’ trick. In 1991, Tony Benn demonstrated that if there was a “constitution” it was principally the enforcement of an oath of loyalty towards tradition in the body of the king or queen (Hansard, 1991; Benn, 1993].
Despite all this, the study of Politics in Britain’s universities today extols the myth of the constitution and largely avoids questioning its existence. Citation and derivation have become standard academic tool in place of difficult thinking and breaking new territory.
To intellectually dismantle a political system and rebuild it is a daunting a task. There are interests and livelihoods at stake. The pronouncements of the great theorists and jurists of the past will have to be re-evaluated. Perhaps worse is that there would have to be a frank re-examination of the legitimacy of the monarchy, which is the lynchpin of the constitution. The easiest way to duck this re-examination is to exalt the mystique of the monarchy as an unapproachable contradiction which “works” as Vernon Bogdanor (2009) has done and in which Robert Hazell (2020) excels.
To accept things as they are – and wax lyrical about the sovereignty of the crown-in-parliament; the longevity, continuity and stability of the system; and the gains of the Glorious Revolution – makes for an easy life for the academic; but an easy life is the enemy of the truth.
“Britain’s antiquated political system is never going to solve our problems; rather, it is a root cause of them” wrote Andy Burnham (2022). “The fundamental problem … is not the individuals,” according to Rory Stewart (2025). “It is the way in which every aspect of our political settlement – parties, whips and electoral systems – creates all the wrong incentives and behaviours. The best hope for better government is not another reshuffle but a constitutional revolution.” What does this phrase mean except that the constitution performs badly – or doesn’t perform at all?.
The Cavalier Constitution 