Unit 6 - Constitutions

Unit 6: Constitutions and Constitutional Design

Builds on Unit 3 - Democracy and Unit 4 - Authoritarian and Non-Democratic States by examining the formal institutional foundations of political systems. Constitutions establish the formal organizational features of the state and are the starting point for understanding how political power is structured, distributed, and constrained.

Opening Case

The chapter opens with the preamble to the South African Constitution (1996): “We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past; Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land… We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic…” The preamble illustrates how constitutions do more than design institutions — they express a society’s values, aspirations, and founding identity.

Key Concepts

• Constitutions are the foundational charters and “law above all other law” of modern states
• Constitutional design shapes how power is divided — between levels of government (federalism/unitarism) and among branches (separation of powers)
• Constitutions range from rigid (hard to amend) to flexible (easily changed by legislature)
• Judicial review gives courts the power to strike down unconstitutional laws; parliamentary sovereignty places that authority in the legislature instead
• All modern states — including authoritarian ones — have constitutions, but having one on paper does not guarantee rights in practice
• Federalism has complex, contested effects on stability, democracy, and economic performance

---

Part 1: Concepts

What is a Constitution?

Constitutions are the foundational charters and fundamental laws of most modern states. They elaborate the structure of government and express the founding principles of the regime. Key characteristics:

• Usually written documents passed by a constitutional convention or constituent assembly
• May be created at a country’s founding (USA, 1787) or when a new regime is established (France has had many)
• Symbolize the social contract — “the people” confer authority to political actors in exchange for order and rule of law
• Closely linked to constitutionalism (limited government) and the development of democracy
• Serve as the set of rules and norms on which all other laws are based — the “law above all other law”
• In most cases, written in a single document subject to amendment
• Even if codified, a constitution is about more than a single document

Functions of Constitutions

Constitutions serve six core functions:

1. To set out the values and goals for a society
2. To regulate relations between the citizen and the state (establish the rights enjoyed by citizens)
3. To be the basis for other laws and judicial rulings
4. To serve as a political symbol
5. To define the structure of major institutions of government
6. To divide powers and duties among the various institutions of government

Exam Alert

A constitution does not guarantee rights will be respected in practice. Even authoritarian and totalitarian regimes maintain constitutions — sometimes with more enumerated rights on paper than democratic ones.

Constitutional Design

Constitutional design refers to the features of the constitution that shape the powers of different political institutions. All constitutions define the basic structure of government, but they vary considerably in how they do so.

Three key elements of constitutional design:

1. Federalism vs. unitarism — how power is divided between levels of government
2. Separation of powers — how power is divided among branches of government
3. Judicial review — whether courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws

Constitutional Instability

France has gone through numerous constitutions throughout its history; the current one dates only to 1958. By contrast, the U.S. Constitution has remained in force since 1787 — though it has been amended 27 times.

The French Constitution

• The current French state is the Fifth Republic
• Its constitution was introduced in 1958, following the collapse of the Fourth Republic (1946-1958)
• The constitution introduced a new political system — a semi-presidential system
• Heavily influenced by General Charles De Gaulle, but also shaped by broader French constitutional history
• France’s many constitutional iterations illustrate how political crises drive constitutional replacement

---

Part 2: Types of Constitutional Arrangements

Codified vs. Uncodified Constitutions

The first and most fundamental distinction in constitutional form is whether a constitution is codified or uncodified:

Type	Definition	Examples
Codified	All core constitutional rules are written in a single, authoritative document that is treated as the supreme law of the land	United States, Germany, France, Brazil, South Africa
Uncodified	Constitutional rules are dispersed across multiple statutes, historical documents, judicial precedents, and conventions — no single authoritative text	United Kingdom, New Zealand, Israel

Key Points

• A codified constitution is sometimes called a “written” constitution, but this is slightly misleading — the UK’s constitutional documents are also written. The real difference is consolidation into one supreme document vs. scattered across many sources.
• In codified systems, the constitution stands above ordinary legislation — Parliament or Congress cannot override it with a simple majority.
• In uncodified systems, constitutional rules have no higher legal status than ordinary legislation. Parliament can alter constitutional arrangements without a special procedure.
• The vast majority of states today have codified constitutions. The UK is the most prominent exception.

Exam Alert

Codified ≠ Rigid; Uncodified ≠ Flexible. These are two separate dimensions:

• A codified constitution can be flexible if it is easily amended (though this is rare in practice).
• An uncodified constitution is generally flexible by default because no single document has supreme status, but political norms can still make change difficult. The UK is both uncodified and flexible — but these are two separate properties, not one.

---

Flexible vs. Rigid Constitutions

Type	Definition	Example
Rigid	Requires supermajorities or subnational approval to amend	United States
Flexible	Can be changed by a simple majority of the legislature	United Kingdom

Rigid Constitutions

• Amending typically requires supermajorities in each chamber of the legislature, or approval by subnational units
• U.S. Constitution: requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress plus approval by 3/4 of state legislatures
  • Amended only 27 times since passage; only 17 times since 1791
• Rigidity signals that the constitution is treated as the supreme law — not easily bent to short-term political majorities

Flexible Constitutions

• Can be changed by a simple majority of the legislature
• UK Constitution: Parliament is sovereign; any law passed by a majority is, by definition, constitutional
• The UK is the principal exception to the rule of written constitutional charters — it has no single written constitutional document

The United Kingdom: A Multi-Document Constitution

The UK relies on multiple historical documents accumulated over centuries:

Document	Year	Significance
Magna Carta	1215	First limits on royal power
Bill of Rights	1689	Further limits on monarchy
Acts of Settlement	1701	Established succession to throne
Acts of Parliament	Ongoing	Determine constitutional norms
Common law precedents	Ongoing	Judicial interpretation over time

New Zealand (a former British colony) similarly relies on a set of major acts of Parliament rather than a single written constitution.¹

Why Doesn't the UK Zig-Zag?

If Parliament can change the constitution by simple majority, why doesn’t it do so dramatically with every election? The answer: norms, values, customs, and traditions. Constitutional stability does not depend on rigid procedure alone — societal consensus and political culture also constrain change. This shows that procedure is not the only determinant of how and when constitutions change.

Rights in Constitutions

• Many contemporary constitutions (including South Africa and Brazil) incorporate significant rights into the main text from the beginning, rather than as later amendments
• The U.S. Bill of Rights was added as a set of amendments to the original document
• Rights may be well protected or entirely disrespected in practice regardless of their inclusion on paper

---

Constitutional Change

Why do constitutions change — or get replaced entirely? Common drivers include:

• War and military conflict: defeat or occupation often invalidates existing constitutional order; post-WWII Germany and Japan both adopted entirely new constitutions under Allied supervision
• Revolution or regime collapse: the overthrow of a regime necessitates new foundational rules (e.g., French Revolution → multiple constitutions; collapse of Soviet Union → new constitutions across Eastern Europe)
• Transition from authoritarianism: democratizing states emerging from military rule or dictatorship replace constitutions associated with the old regime (e.g., Brazil 1988 after military rule, Spain 1978 after Franco)
• Decolonization / independence: newly independent states draft constitutions at founding to define the new political order (e.g., India 1950, most African states at independence)
• Succession and state formation: when states break apart, merge, or are newly created, constitutions must be written or rewritten (e.g., dissolution of Yugoslavia, German reunification)
• Social or political crisis: deep societal conflict — over rights, identity, or power — can pressure constitutional revision even without regime change (e.g., South Africa post-apartheid, Chile’s recent constitutional reform process)
• Gradual reform: in stable democracies, incremental amendments accumulate over time in response to changing values or political needs (e.g., U.S. amendments abolishing slavery, extending suffrage)

Outside of major regime changes, constitutions can evolve incrementally. The extent of this change is affected by factors including:

• Social changes — shifts in values, demographics, or societal expectations
• Government change — new governing parties or coalitions pursuing reform
• External forces — international pressure, globalization, or treaty obligations

Mechanisms for Changing Constitutions

• Formal amendment: explicit procedure to alter the constitutional text — supermajorities, referenda, or subnational ratification in rigid systems; simple majority in flexible systems
• Judicial reinterpretation: courts read the same text differently over time, changing constitutional meaning without altering the words
• Constitutional conventions: unwritten norms that develop through political practice and come to be treated as binding (especially in uncodified systems like the UK)
• Full replacement: the entire constitution is scrapped and rewritten, requiring a new constituent assembly — signals a break with the past rather than continuity

Note

Constitutional replacement tends to happen at critical junctures — moments of rupture where old rules lose legitimacy. Amendments, by contrast, happen within the existing order. The difference matters: replacement requires a new constituent assembly and signals a break with the past; amendment signals continuity.

---

Judicial Review vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty

This is one of the most important distinctions in constitutional design:

Feature	Judicial Review	Parliamentary Sovereignty
Who interprets the constitution?	Courts / constitutional courts	The legislature itself
Can laws be struck down?	Yes	No
Example country	United States	United Kingdom
Relationship to democracy	Checks legislative majorities	Legislature is highest authority

Judicial Review

• Process by which national courts examine the constitutionality of laws
• Constitutional courts are separated from civil and criminal court systems
• The constitution is treated as the supreme law of the land; courts verify that legislation is consistent with it
• High court or “supreme court” sits at the pinnacle of the judicial system as the final arbiter
• Decisions can only be overturned by subsequent judicial rulings or by amending the constitution

U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has 9 justices, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for life terms. It is the final arbiter of constitutional law in the United States and can strike down laws passed by Congress.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

• Constitutionality is determined by parliament, not courts
• Courts rule on the merits of specific cases but cannot question the legitimacy of laws passed by the legislature
• The legislating body is the highest political and legal authority
• The UK is the most prominent example: the British Parliament could theoretically overturn long-standing constitutional elements at any moment²

Exam Alert

Both parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review (separation of powers) are compatible with democracy — they are simply different ways of understanding how constitutions should be interpreted and who holds ultimate authority.

---

Federalism and Unitarism

Federalism

A system of government in which multiple levels of government have some degree of autonomy in the same territory. Subnational governments (states, provinces, regions) have constitutional protection of their authority.

A system is not federal simply because it has more than one level of government — many systems have different levels of government but are not federal. The key issue is the constitutional protection afforded to the levels of government. In a federal system, these levels cannot abolish the other without their consent; the different levels have a constitutionally guaranteed right to exist.

Historical origins:

• The U.S. was an early leader (along with Switzerland)
• James Madison (“Father of the Constitution”), principal author of The Federalist Papers, designed the American compromise
• Senate structure gave each state equal representation regardless of population — a protection for smaller states

Characteristics of federal systems:

• Constitutional guarantees of power and autonomy for subnational governments
• An upper legislative chamber (e.g., Senate) with territorial representation
• Full legislative and executive branches at the subnational level

Federal countries around the world (Map 8.1):

Region	Federal Countries
Africa	Comoros, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa
Asia	India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, United Arab Emirates
Europe	Austria, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Germany, Spain, Switzerland
North America	Canada, Mexico, United States
South America	Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela
Oceania	Australia, Micronesia

Federal Countries and Population

Only about 20 of nearly 200 countries are federal, but they account for a large portion of the world’s population. The four most populous countries after China — India, the USA, Indonesia, and Brazil — are all federal.

Confederation

A system where the central government is created by the constituent governments and the component units remain sovereign. The central government is weak while the state/provincial governments are more powerful. This stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from unitarism — with federalism occupying the middle ground.

Unitarism

A system of government in which the central government is predominant and subnational governments have only those powers delegated by the center.

Key features:

• Only the central government is specified in the constitutional charter
• Local governments (municipalities, prefectures, counties) may elect officials but have little real power
• The center establishes national school curriculum, staffs health offices, directs policy
• Encapsulated in the French maxim: “The republic is one and indivisible”

Conditions associated with unitarism:

• Small country size (most small countries are unitary)
• Ethnic, linguistic, cultural homogeneity (federalism takes root where diversity is high)
• Colonial heritage: former French colonies tend toward unitarism; British and Spanish colonies vary

Types of power division in unitary systems:

• Deconcentrated power: agents of the central government are placed in different geographical parts of the country to carry out central policy locally (e.g., the French system of prefects)
• Devolved power (Devolution): the transfer of power from the centre to local or regional units, granting them some degree of self-governance while the centre retains ultimate authority

Common Mistake

Federalism is not inherently more democratic than unitarism, nor is unitarism inherently more authoritarian. Each has different implications for how government works, but neither is definitively superior in terms of democratic values.

---

Structure of Government at the Central Level

Constitutions also establish the main institutions of government and their relationship with each other — the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. Two fundamental models:

Model	Description	System Type
Separation of Powers	The executive, legislature, and judiciary are constitutionally independent of each other, with checks and balances	Presidential System
Fusion of Powers	The executive is drawn from and accountable to the legislature; no strict separation between the two branches	Parliamentary System

• In a presidential system, the president is elected independently and cannot be removed by the legislature (except through impeachment); the legislature cannot be dissolved by the president
• In a parliamentary system, the prime minister and cabinet are members of the legislature and depend on its confidence to remain in power
• A semi-presidential system (e.g., France’s Fifth Republic) combines elements of both: a directly elected president alongside a prime minister accountable to the legislature

---

Authoritarian and Democratic Constitutions

Historically, constitutionalism meant eliminating the divine right or absolute power of monarchs. Constitutional monarchy was seen as distinct from divine right monarchy: executive power derived from the consent of the governed.

However, having a constitution does not mean a system is democratic:

• Those who originally demanded constitutionalism were often elites, nobles, revolutionaries, or military leaders — not always interested in rights for all
• For centuries, constitutional rights were restricted to property-owning males of certain racial/ethnic backgrounds
• Writing rights down on paper does not guarantee enforcement

Authoritarian Constitutions

• Authoritarian regimes almost always have constitutions — even where they deny political rights and civil liberties
• May appear progressive on paper — even totalitarian regimes may list extensive rights they do not protect
• The Soviet Union guaranteed: education, health care, housing, and pensions — none of which are listed in the U.S. Constitution
• Some authoritarian regimes govern under a previous democratic constitution but suspend certain elements
• Military regimes may establish martial law or states of emergency, sometimes for extended periods
• Facade democracies: some regimes maintain the full constitutional appearance of democracy — elections, a legislature, a bill of rights — while systematically subverting these institutions in practice; the constitution is a legitimizing tool, not a real constraint on power

Facade Democracy — Russia

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 19.2: “The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of public associations, and also of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned.” Despite these guarantees on paper, Russia demonstrates that constitutional provisions do not ensure rights are respected in practice.

Religious Law and “Constitutional Theocracy”

Some countries base part of their legal system on religious law:

• Most prominent in the Islamic world: sharia law, based on the Qur’an and other Islamic texts
• Saudi Arabia and Iran: judiciaries linked to state religion; rule on the basis of religious law
• Issues not addressed directly in the Qur’an are reasoned by analogy with the sunnah and hadith (words and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad)

Religious Law is Not Automatically Authoritarian

• Turkey: majority Muslim, formally secular state
• India and Indonesia: partial use of Islamic law in specific cases (e.g., family law between Muslims)
• Israel and UK: provisions for religious courts available to those who wish to use them

Ran Hirschl coined the term “constitutional theocracy” to describe systems where constitutional law is combined with recognition of an official state religion and use of religious texts as a foundation for law.

---

Part 3: Causes and Effects — Federal vs. Unitary Constitutions

Three major questions about the consequences of federal vs. unitary constitutional design:

$\text{Federal vs. Unitary}\to \text{Effects on: (1) Social Stability, (2) Democratic Rights, (3) Economy}$

What Constitutional Designs Support Social Stability?

Arguments FOR federalism promoting stability

• Confers powers to subnational levels — gives more people a stake in the political system
• Regions/groups that feel autonomy may participate rather than demand independence or secession
• Ethiopia: constitution gives regional groups the theoretical right to secede, with the expectation that offering this outlet encourages compromise and unified governance

Arguments AGAINST federalism (stability concerns)

• May exacerbate differences by drawing significant lines between groups
• Encourages development of independent regional identities
• Spain: Catalan nationalism may have grown as regional autonomy increased
• Nigeria: ethnic minorities feeling unfairly treated may escalate demands for secession, potentially leading to ethnic violence

Key Scholarly Arguments

William Riker — Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (1964)

• Federalism results from a bargain among regional actors driven by external threats (classic case: post-revolutionary USA)
• American federal system is relatively centralized in practice — national institutions rarely serve state interests; the exception is the system of political parties
• Surprising conclusion: federalism is an institution of relatively little significance — fundamental similarities in governance exist between federal and unitary states

Alfred Stepan — "Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model" ( Journal of Democracy, 1999)

• Corrects Riker: many instances of federalism are not about “coming together” but about “holding together” different groups within an existing state
• Examples: India, Belgium, Spain
• Federal systems vary in how much power is given to the territorial chamber (e.g., Senate)
• Some federalism is “asymmetrical” — greater powers for some subnational regions than others (e.g., Canada’s recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society”)
• Conclusion: the diversity of federal arrangements means not all federalism follows the U.S. model

---

What Constitutional Designs Support Democratic Rights?

• Federal institutions may facilitate democratic incorporation of diverse groups — OR reinforce divisions
• If residents feel disempowered, they may turn to non-democratic means to achieve objectives
• Key tension: states’ rights vs. universal rights

The Abortion Debate and Federalism (USA)

• States’ rights perspective: different states (e.g., Vermont, Alabama) should be allowed to have different abortion laws, reflecting local values — a perceived advantage of federalism
• Counter-argument: Should people have different fundamental rights depending on where they happen to live or be born?
• This illustrates the core tension: democratic wish of regions vs. the logic of universal constitutional rights applying equally across a country

---

What Constitutional Designs Support the Economy?

Arguments FOR federalism’s economic benefits

Mechanism	Description
Interstate competition	States compete for businesses and residents, incentivizing good policy
Sorting / Tiebout model	Citizens can choose jurisdictions matching their policy preferences (e.g., high-tax/good-schools vs. low-tax/less-funded schools)
Local information advantage	Local governments closer to constituents have better knowledge of local needs

Wallace Oates — Fiscal Federalism (1972): "Decentralization Theorem"

• Local governments have better information about what their constituents need
• Giving local governments authority to offer different services allows people to sort themselves by policy preference
• Central governments remain necessary for national needs (defense, common currency)

Arguments AGAINST federalism’s economic performance

Problem	Description
Soft budget constraint	States overspend knowing the central government will bail them out
Fiscal irresponsibility	Federalism creates incentives for politicians to overspend
Inefficient resource allocation	Senates (Brazil, USA) routinely allocate money disproportionately to less populous, more rural states

Examples: Argentina and Brazil — states/provinces overspent and forced central government bailouts.

Rodden and Wibbels — "Beyond the Fiction of Federalism" ( World Politics, 2002)

• Whether federalism is good or bad for the economy depends on other institutions:
  • If states rely on central government transfers → overspend, pass costs to center
  • If states get revenues from their own taxes → spend more responsibly
• Political parties matter: central leaders with leverage over state-level officials can enforce fiscal discipline
• Key requirement: hard budget constraints for states if federalism is to work well

Exam Alert

We cannot draw a firm conclusion about whether federalism or unitarism is definitively better for stability, democracy, or the economy. Context and other institutional conditions always matter.

---

Judicial Review and Democracy

One of the most heated debates in constitutional politics: should unelected judges have the power to overturn laws passed by elected legislatures?

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism refers (often pejoratively) to judicial actions that actively reinterpret legislation, implying that judges are exercising powers typically reserved for the legislative branch — “legislating from the bench.”

Arguments against judicial activism:

• Takes the most contentious debates out of the democratic process (elections, public debate, protests) and places them in the arena of lawsuits and court rulings
• Issues decided by a small number of unelected judges, which may not reflect broader public opinion
• Critics often prefer society’s most contentious issues decided in legislatures
• The UK model: prevents judicial activism by granting the legislature unambiguously higher authority than the judiciary

Arguments for strong judicial review:

• Judges interpret laws to ensure compliance with the letter of the constitution and legal precedent
• Courts have often led legislatures in recognizing and expanding fundamental rights
• Judicial review and some degree of judicial activism are the flip side of checks and balances between branches

Judicial Activism in the United States

• Roe v. Wade (1973): Supreme Court legalized abortion — widely cited as an example of judicial activism
• Expansion of civil union and marriage rights for same-sex couples: another frequently cited example
• Counterintuitive finding: studies in the 2000s showed the justices who most frequently voted to overturn Congressional laws were the more conservative members of the Supreme Court

Ran Hirschl — Towards Juristocracy (Harvard University Press, 2007)

• Observes a global move toward powerful judiciaries (“juristocracy”) in recent decades
• Studies: Canada, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa
• Cause: strategic calculations by elites who believe their interests are better protected by courts than elected officials; encoding principles as constitutional rights shields elite dominance from democratic challenge
• Consequence: increasing judicial review leads NOT to progressive expansion of rights or enhanced democracy, but to protection of elite interests
• Coined term: “juristocracy”

---

Part 4: Thinking Comparatively — Brazil and South Africa

Most-Different-Systems Design Applied to Constitutional Comparison

Brazil (late 1980s) and South Africa (early 1990s) emerged from very different circumstances:

Feature	Brazil	South Africa
Context	Emerging from two decades of military rule	Emerging from apartheid (1948–1994)
Key actors	Politicians and military seeking peaceful exit	White-led National Party + black-majority ANC (Nelson Mandela)
Primary conflict	Civil-military relations	Racial injustice and segregation

Yet their constitutions share fundamental similarities:

Similarity	Brazil (1988)	South Africa (1996)
Written constitution	Yes	Yes
Length	245 articles	243 articles
Constitutional court	Yes (strong judicial review)	Yes (strong judicial review)
Federal structure	Yes	Yes (provinces)
Aspirational goals	Yes	Yes
Rights in main text	Yes	Yes

Both constitutions also specify: political party funding rules, municipal structures, roles for traditional leaders, procedures for revenue division between levels of government, and even the design of the national flag. Compare this to the U.S. Constitution, which fits on a few pages.

Exam Alert

This case illustrates the most-different-systems design: two countries highly dissimilar in history, geography, and social context converge on similar constitutional outcomes. The fact that such different cases share outcomes makes the comparison analytically powerful for generating and testing hypotheses.

Hypotheses for Why Brazil and South Africa Have Such Similar Constitutions

Hypothesis	Explanation
H1 — Historical Timing	Both adopted constitutions at a similar moment (1980s–90s); modern societies require more negotiations and must address more sets of rights than in the 1780s
H2 — Powerful Actors	Both transitions required guarantees for all parties: the new democratic government AND protections for the departing non-democratic government
H3 — Modeled on Others	SA and Brazilian constitution writers explicitly looked to other constitutions (e.g., Germany, Mexico) as models — countries do not exist in vacuums
H4 — Key Similarities	Both are racially/ethnically diverse with high economic inequality and large territories — conditions that favor extensive constitutional language and federalism

Notable difference: Brazil elects its president by popular vote; South Africa’s president is elected by the National Assembly (legislature).

---

Part 5: Cases in Context

Country	Key Constitutional Features
United Kingdom	No single written constitution; parliamentary sovereignty; most flexible system in the world; no judicial review on most matters
United States	Rigid written constitution; strong judicial review; ongoing debate about judicial activism
Iran	Clerics hold considerable judicial and political power; sharia-based system; sometimes described as “judicial sovereignty”
Nigeria	Federal system explicitly linked to stability; began with 3 regions at independence (1960); civil war led to creation of more and smaller states to defuse conflict
India	Federal system; world’s largest number of people in extreme poverty despite fast-growing economy; large disparities in development between states
Brazil	Federal system; 245-article constitution (1988); states have historically overspent and required central bailouts
South Africa	243-article constitution (1996); established after apartheid; strong judicial review (Constitutional Court); federal structure with provinces

---

Definitions

Term	Definition
Codified Constitution	A constitution in which all core constitutional rules are consolidated into a single authoritative written document that stands as the supreme law of the land, above ordinary legislation
Uncodified Constitution	A constitution in which constitutional rules are dispersed across multiple statutes, historical documents, judicial precedents, and conventions, with no single authoritative supreme text; the UK is the primary example
Constitution	Fundamental and supreme laws, usually written in a charter, that establish the basis of a political system and the basis for other laws; the “law above all other law”
Constitutionalism	The limitation of government through a constitution; the principle of limited, accountable government
Constitutional Design	Features of constitutions that shape the basic features of the political system, such as separation of powers and responsibilities between levels of government and branches of government
Federalism	A system of government with constitutional separation of powers between a central government and subnational governments (states, provinces, regions), each with some degree of autonomy
Unitarism	A system of government in which the central government is predominant and the powers of subnational governments are limited to those delegated by the center
Separation of Powers	The division of powers in a government system between branches of government or between levels of government
Judiciary	The branch of government responsible for the interpretation of laws in courts
Judicial Review	System of constitutional interpretation in which judges rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and the executive; courts can strike down laws as unconstitutional
Parliamentary Sovereignty	System in which the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature and executive are not subject to constitutional interpretation by the judiciary; the legislature is the supreme authority
Judicial Activism	A term used, often pejoratively, to characterize judicial actions that actively reinterpret legislation, implying that judges are exercising powers typically reserved for the legislative branch
Juristocracy	Ran Hirschl’s term for governance systems characterized by an exceptionally powerful judiciary; argued to serve elite interests rather than expanding democratic rights
Constitutional Theocracy	Ran Hirschl’s term for a system in which constitutional law is combined with recognition of an official state religion and use of religious beliefs or texts as a foundation for law
Soft Budget Constraint	In federal systems, the condition in which subnational governments overspend because they know the central government will bail them out, undermining fiscal responsibility
Sharia	Islamic religious law based on the Qur’an and other core Islamic texts, applied in the judicial systems of some Muslim-majority countries
Sunnah / Hadith	The words and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad; used alongside the Qur’an to reason through legal questions not directly addressed in the holy text
Confederation	A system of government where the central government is created by the constituent governments and the component units remain sovereign; the central government is weak while state/provincial governments hold more power
Deconcentrated Power	A form of power distribution in unitary systems where agents of the central government are placed in different geographical parts of the country to administer central policy locally (e.g., French prefects)
Devolution	The transfer of power from the central government to local or regional units, granting them some degree of self-governance while the centre retains ultimate authority
Fusion of Powers	A constitutional arrangement in which the executive is drawn from and accountable to the legislature, with no strict separation between the two branches; characteristic of parliamentary systems
Semi-Presidential System	A system combining a directly elected president with a prime minister and cabinet accountable to the legislature; France’s Fifth Republic is the principal example
Facade Democracy	A regime that maintains the full constitutional appearance of democracy — elections, a legislature, a bill of rights — while systematically subverting these institutions in practice
Constituent Assembly	A body convened to draft or adopt a new constitution; brings together leading political figures to establish the foundational rules of governance

Footnotes

1. New Zealand, like the UK, does not have a single written constitutional document. Its constitutional basis consists of several key Acts of Parliament, including the Constitution Act 1986 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. ↩

2. In practice, the UK Parliament refrains from dramatically overturning constitutional fundamentals because it operates within a system of strong political norms, traditions, and values — demonstrating that constitutional stability is not solely a product of formal rigid procedures. ↩