My friend told me of a competition that took place in the UK to find a motto for “Britishness”… One of the best ones was “We don’t need one, we’re British.”
(Thought I would put that out there seeing as we’ve spent quite a bit of time pondering that precise question in class and in our readings, and this answer encapsulates the point of Great Britain’s self-sustainable and perpetuating identity.) Wright points out the “general tendency among the British not to know about, or care about, who they are.” (p. 4) This reveals the level of confidence in the continuity and solidity of the British government institutions and British identity as a whole. Integration into the European Union did at its onset stir up some discomfort and skepticism, with the fear of deferring to a power that was not, in fact, part of the British system. This discomfort is still obvious today –though more muted- as pointed out in class and in Wright’s writing with for example the concrete fact of the pound sterling still being preferred to the Euro. One could read this as a sign of the weakening of that self-perpetuating and adaptive constitution of Great Britain. Or, a sign that the changing nature and face of the UK and Europe as a whole (“dynamic”, aka immigration) is unsettling those inherent and inherited elements of British identity, which solidifies and guarantees the nature of the political system as we saw in the president’s questions video with Tony Blair. However, as Wright points out as did Professor King, the advantage of a non-formal and written constitution is that it perhaps more easily adapts to changing circumstances, without, as Caelah points out in her post, a whole lot of “unconstitutional” hullabaloo as would take place in the USA. The truth is, written constitutions and bill of rights are not the safeguards of democracy. There are plenty of examples of countries with excellent bill of rights that however cannot be considered democracies (USSR). So it is telling to consider that democratic institutions in the UK are in fact fundamentally based on a civil society and institutions that sustain it.
Wright’s explanation of British politics brings up the point that came up in lecture a week or two ago about positive and negative government. The UK and the US are often compared in our readings and in general with obvious similarities in contrast with other European governments, but a fundamental difference is that of understanding the role of government, aside from the actual institutions and structure of it. (“What will the government do?” as opposed to “what will we do?”) As the Judt reading also illustrates, the emergence post 1945 of the welfare state in Europe is a fundamentally European characteristic, and is now an inherent element to understanding how government works. The US of course understands government very differently.
I want to bring up a point that is perhaps mute or far-fetched, but when Wright talks about the UK as being considered a “model for democracy” (p.4) and emphasizes the blind spot of the Irish Question, I would argue that Britain’s colonial history, which is very much a part of the twentieth century, may taint its “democratic model” history as well. While effectively we are looking at British politics locally, what this may perhaps emphasize is a point that Wright also makes that democracy in Great Britain was not a result of attachments to ideals and freedom in such a lofty sense but rather a far more practical and pragmatic reality, which explains somewhat the lack of worry or interest in written constitution as well as the embracing of the monarchy as a comfortable and essential element of British identity.
I will finish by raising a question about the place of patriotism among the members of the European Union, and whether it shifts to take on a meaning that is far more tied to culture than to patrie… Just like the Scottish national movement may argue for independence since it would still effectively hold the same place since it would be part of the EU, that same argument could be used against the independent movement. Why bother, then, if we are moving to an era of greater integration into the Union (possibly?), what goals would this achieve beyond appeasing specific cultural ends?
Essentially, what will it mean to be “French” or “English”, if Europe does indeed move into deeper integration where all its citizens are “European”, politically (if we ask this question with an imagined situation of political union, not just economic)? Could there be a relationship similar to that between “Britain” and its members (Scotland, England etc), for Europe and its members, with WWII as the common identity link, embodied by the commitment to avoid at all costs any further conflict?
(Sorry that was a very long post….)
4 comments:
I think you are definitely right that written rules don't mean anything unless the people believe in them. However, I think that people can be trained to respect the laws to a point where they would in fact have some restraining power. I am reminded of Plato's Laws where he advises that laws be written down once, and then altered only in extreme cases. Over the years the simple ink on the page is invested with a certain sanctity because of its age and tradition. It is interesting that the UK basis itself on tradition, but it is unwritten. Maybe a combination of an ancient written code can be combined with the power of tradition. The is what the US attempts, I think
I think when you set rules and procedures on paper it's like writing it in stone. Even though the United States has a Constitution enumerating the rights of citizens, it does create limits and can be interpreted in different ways according to who is in power and what political ideology they carry with them. The framers of the Constitution knew that written law would not survive through out the years unless it was broad enough to be interpreted. This is why our Constitution still exists today and our government is able to adapt to various controversial issues without straying from what the Constitution says.
Thus, tradition does play a large role in any government. As Americans we understand the importance of rule of law, on paper, and the continual interpretation of the law by those in power. However, a government relying solely on tradition sets itself up for being vulnerable. Even though British parliament has survived thus far, I think it won't be too long until some issues will test its traditions and interpretation of traditional laws. Traditions often stay intact, but how we interpret those traditions often changes.
I agree that written rules do not mean much unless people can believe in them. And, like Krystle said, a lot of that belief comes from tradition. Written constitutions are more legitimate because you can always refer back to it, use it as proof, have that written "support" for your government. And, because the Unites States was founded on written a constitution, it knows nothing more. Thus, states like the UK, who have never based their laws on a written constitution and have continued to have no problems with not having one, do not need such documents to have a successful government. It is all based on tradition, and transitioning from written to no constitution or vise versa is a challenge that may not be well-accepted. It all depends on how well tradition can be slightly altered.
I also agree that written rules doesnt always mean anything unless people believe in them and understands them. The Constitution in the U.S., exactly how many average U.S. citizens know all of the amendments and the rights stated in that Constitution? As long as if they understand the basics and the foundations, then its all good. In the case of UK, they dont have a written constitution but they do value tradition and traditions are passed on, so people still understand and know the core of their government, the fundamental ideas and their basic rights even without a written document. Their tradition values reform and not revolution, new bits are added on but old bits are rarely taken away. They have a political/historical constitution that has been shaped and reshaped by the political circumstances. In regards to the issue of identity, I have been wondering too about whether the EU has made the Europeans more European. More often than not, when i ask someone who looks like an European, he/she will answer that I am European first and then say that he/she is Slovenian and etc. Especially the european people of the smaller nations, they dont say at first that they are estonian but european first, whereas the british and the french usually answer right out that they are french/british and not european. Is this trend going to increase more? Will they become Europeans, how will self-identiy play out?
Post a Comment