No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Constitutions and bills of rights: invigorating or placating democracy?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 June 2018
Abstract
Champions of constitutions and bills of rights regularly portray them as possessing significant, sometimes mysterious, powers. One characterisation is that newly implemented constitutions may invigorate a democracy, particularly at the ballot box. This paper challenges that notion by scrutinising a relatively unexplored area of constitutional performance: voter turnout. In particular, it examines a number of jurisdictions that have recently implemented constitutions and bill of rights, finding that in many of them, voter turnout decreased after passage, sometimes significantly. As the argument for a codified British constitution endures, the findings of this paper provide provisional evidence that those advocating for such a device should be wary of touting its potentially invigorating democratic effects. Ultimately, however, the paper calls for more research into the area of constitutions and democratic performance, such as voter turnout.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society of Legal Scholars 2018
References
1 Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee A New Magna Carta (HC Paper No 463, 10 July 2014) p 19 (author's emphasis).
2 Ibid, p 21.
3 Loughlin, M ‘The constitutional imagination’ (2015) 78(1) Modern Law Review 1 at 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 See The Constitution of the People's Republic of China, established in 1982.
5 Galligan, DJ and Versteeg, M ‘Theoretical perspectives on the social and political foundations of constitutions’ in Galligan, DJ and Versteeg, M, Social and Political Foundations of Constitutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) p 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 As Thomas Paine famously wrote (cited in Loughlin, M The Idea of Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
7 See, eg, Dworkin, R Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977) p 133Google Scholar; Allan, TRS ‘The rule of law’ in Dyzenhaus, D and Thorburn, M, Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) p 216Google Scholar (although Allan does not necessarily subscribe to this view – he merely acknowledges it is a common ‘assumption’).
8 Lerner, H Making Constitutions in Deeply Divided Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) p 16Google Scholar.
9 N Barber ‘Against a written constitution’ (2008) Public Law 11 (‘No one enjoys radical change quite as much as constitutional lawyers’).
10 French Constitution, Preamble, para 1.
11 See, eg, Ginsburg, T and Huq, AZ ‘Assessing constitutional performance’ in Ginsburg, T and Huq, AZ Assessing Constitutional Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) pp 23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 See, eg, Barak, A ‘On constitutional implications and constitutional structure’ in Dyzenhaus, D and Thorburn, M Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) pp 62–64Google Scholar; BC Jones ‘Preliminary warnings on constitutional idolatry’ (2016) Public Law 74 at 75.
13 Levinson, S ‘Do constitutions have a point?’ in Paul, EF, Miller, FD and Paul, J What Should Constitutions Do? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) p 178Google Scholar.
14 Elkins, Z, Ginsburg, T and Melton, B The Endurance of National Constitutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Paul, Miller and Paul, above n 13.
16 Ginsburg and Huq, above n 11.
17 Elkins, Ginsburg and Melton, above n 14, pp 12–35.
18 Of course, some of these social and political elements have always been present in constitutional scholarship, and can be seen in work by Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson, and others.
19 Levinson, above n 13, at 178.
20 See, eg, Lerner, M ‘Constitution and court as symbols’ (1937) 46(8) Yale Law Journal 1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grey, TC ‘The constitution as scripture’ (1984) 37(1) Stanford Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Pryor, J Constitutions: Writing Nations, Reading Difference (Abington: Birbeck Law, 2008) p 5Google Scholar.
22 Loughlin, above n 3, at 3.
23 See, eg, R Gargarella ‘When is a constitution doing well? The Alberdian test in the Americas’ in Ginsburg and Huq, above n 11, p 99.
24 R Dixon and D Landau ‘Competitive democracy and the constitutional minimum core’ in Ginsburg and Huq, above n 11, p 268.
25 R Hardin ‘Why a constitution’ in Galligan and Versteeg, above n 5, p 51.
26 T Ginsburg and AZ Huq ‘Assessing constitutional performance’ in Ginsburg and Huq, above n 11, p 16.
27 R Blackburn ‘Britain's unwritten constitution’, British Library, available at http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution (last accessed 28 May 2018).
28 Blackburn, R ‘Enacting a written constitution for the United Kingdom’ (2015) 36(1) Statute Law Review 1 at 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 J King ‘Constitutions as mission statements’ in Galligan and Versteeg, above n 5, p 73.
30 Widner, J ‘Constitution writing in post-conflict settings: an overview’ (2008) 49 William and Mary Law Review 1513Google Scholar.
31 Moehler, DC Distrusting Democrats: Outcomes of Participatory Constitution-making (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 Elkins, Ginsburg and Melton, above n 14.
33 Galligan and Versteeg, above n 5, p 9.
34 H Landemore ‘What is a good constitution? Assessing the constitutional proposal in the Icelandic experiment’ in Ginsburg and Huq, above n 11, p 79.
35 Galligan and Versteeg, above n 5, p 42.
36 Versteeg, M ‘“Perfection in imperfection”: Joseph de Maistre and the limitations of constitutional design’ in Constitutions and the Classics: Patterns of Constitutional Thought from Fortescue to Bentham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) pp 323–325Google Scholar.
37 Versteeg, M ‘Unpopular constitutionalism’ (2014) 89 Indiana Law Journal 1133 at 1140Google Scholar.
38 King, above n 29, p 82.
39 Levinson, above n 13, pp 177–78.
40 Loughlin, above n 3, at 3.
41 B Ackerman ‘The rise of world constitutionalism’ (1997) Virginia Law Review 771.
42 Galligan, DJ ‘The sovereignty deficit of modern constitutions’ (2013) 33(4) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 703 at 704CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The author rightly points out that ‘democracy’ is rarely mentioned.
43 Ibid, at 729–30.
44 Ibid, at 707.
45 Lerner, above n 8, p 18.
46 Ackerman, B We the People: Foundations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991) p 36Google Scholar.
47 Ibid, p 37.
48 For a historical perspective of parliamentary sovereignty, see Dicey, AV The Law of the Constitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar. For a contemporary perspective on parliamentary sovereignty, see Gordon, M Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution: Process, Politics and Democracy (Oxford: Hart, 2015)Google Scholar.
49 Blackburn, above n 28.
50 A New Magna Carta, above n 1.
51 Jones, above n 12, at 85.
52 Kramer, LD ‘We the court’ (2001–2002) 115(4) Harvard Law Review 6Google Scholar.
53 Versteeg, above n 37, at 1133.
54 Galligan, above n 42, at 711.
55 Law, D and Versteeg, M ‘Sham constitutions’ (2013) 101(4) California Law Review 863Google Scholar.
56 Law, D and Versteeg, M ‘The declining influence of the United States Constitution’ (2012) 87 New York University Law Review 762Google Scholar.
57 Allan, J and Huscroft, G ‘Constitutional rights coming home to roost? Rights internationalism in American courts’ (2006) 43 San Diego Law Review 1Google Scholar.
58 Versteeg, above n 37.
59 See, eg, Huang, CY ‘Unpopular sovereignty: constitutional identity through the lens of the Sunflower and Umbrella movements’ in Jones, BC (ed) Law and Politics of the Taiwan Sunflower and Hong Kong Umbrella Movements (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017) pp 117–126Google Scholar.
60 R Hirschl ‘The strategic foundations of constitutions’ in Galligan and Versteeg, above n 5, p 157.
61 Elkins, Ginsburg and Melton, above n 14, p 129.
62 Cooper, J and Marshall-Williams, A Legislating for Human Rights: The Parliamentary Debates on the Human Rights Bill (Oxford: Hart, 2000) p 11Google Scholar.
63 Levinson, above n 13, p 152.
64 Ackerman, above n 46, p 15.
65 Cooper, J and Marshall-Williams, A Legislating for Human Rights: The Parliamentary Debates on the Human Rights Bill (Oxford: Hart, 2000) p 1Google Scholar.
66 Ibid, p 9.
67 Ibid, p 3.
68 Institute of Public Policy Research A Written Constitution for the United Kingdom (London: Mansell, 1991) p 13Google Scholar.
69 Blackburn, R Towards a Constitutional Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom (London: Pinter, 1999) p 40Google Scholar.
70 Hardin, above n 25, p 52.
71 Powell, GB Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.
72 Gray, M and Cual, M ‘Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: the effects of declining group mobilization’ (2000) 33(9) Comparative Political Studies 1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
73 Powell, GB ‘American voter turnout in comparative perspective’ (1986) 80(1) American Political Science Review 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackman, RW ‘Political institutions and voter turnout in industrial democracies’ (1987) 81 American Political Science Review 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
74 A Blais ‘What affects voter turnout’ (2006) Annual Review of Political Science 111.
75 Ibid, at 121.
76 Ibid, at 116.
77 Blais, A et al. ‘Where does turnout decline come from?’ (2004) 43 European Journal of Political Research 221 at 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 Fedderson, TJ and Pesendorfer, W ‘The swing voter's curse’ (1996) 86(3) The American Economic Review 408Google Scholar.
79 Downs, A An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957)Google Scholar; Blais, A To Vote or Not to Vote: The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000) pp 92–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
80 Versteeg, above n 37.
81 Pitkin, H ‘The idea of a constitution’ (1987) 37 Journal of Legal Education 167 at 168Google Scholar.
82 Conservative Party ‘Protecting human rights in the UK: the Conservatives’ proposals for changing Britain's human rights laws’ (October 2014); A Asthana and R Mason ‘UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May’ The Guardian (25 April 2016), at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum (last accessed 28 May 2018). The 2017 Conservative manifesto says they will consider the UK's human rights framework ‘when the process of leaving the EU concludes’, at https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto (last accessed 28 May 2018).
83 ‘France backs constitution reform’ BBC News (21 July 2008), at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7517505.stm (last accessed 28 May 2018).
84 A New Magna Carta, above n 1.
85 See, eg, A Barnett ‘Why Britain needs a written constitution’ The Guardian (30 November 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/why-britain-needs-written-constitution (last accessed 28 May 2018).
86 Besides the Commons Report, see Blick, A Beyond Magna Carta: A Constitution for the United Kingdom (Oxford: Hart, 2015)Google Scholar.
87 UCL's Constitution Unit has recently provided the blueprint for a constitutional convention. Although they did not advocate that the body consider a written constitution, they do acknowledge that it may be an outcome of such events (A Renwick and R Hazell Blueprint for a UK Constitutional Convention (June 2017), at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/images/news/ccblueprint-2 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
88 Scottish Government The Scottish Independence Bill: A Consultation on an Interim Constitution for Scotland (June 2014).
89 L Colley ‘Why Britain needs a written constitution’ The Guardian (4 November 2011), at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/nov/04/why-britain-needs-written-constitution (last accessed 28 May 2018).
90 Sedley, S ‘No ordinary law’ (1998) 30(11) London Review of Books 20Google Scholar.
91 See MP Graham Allen's quest for a written constitution at http://www.grahamallenmp.co.uk/campaigns/written_constitution (last accessed 28 May 2018).
92 LSE Constitution UK, available at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/constitutionuk/ (last accessed 28 May 2018).
93 G Witte ‘After 800 years, Britain finally asks: do we need a written constitution?’ Washington Post (7 June 2015) at http://wpo.st/5oEq1 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
94 EF Delaney ‘Stability in flexibility: a British lens on constitutional success’ in Ginsburg and Huq, above n 11, p 394.
95 Ackerman, above n 46, pp 238–239.
96 Ibid, p 236.
97 See generally Henkin, L The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981) pp 1–30Google Scholar.
98 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), at www.idea.int (last accessed 28 May 2018).
99 IDEA Voting Turnout database, at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout (last accessed 28 May 2018).
100 Constitute Project, at https://www.constituteproject.org/ (last accessed 28 May 2018).
101 Although it is acknowledged that some of the examples outside of the main case studies below have come from countries making a fundamental political transition.
102 There were two cases (Montenegro and Venezuela) where after constitutional implementation, voting in the same election produced offsetting results, by increasing in parliamentary turnout but decreasing in presidential turnout, or vice versa. These countries were also excluded from the analysis, as the data cancels each other out.
103 There may be a strong argument that one should look at the long-term effects of new constitutions and their effects on voting participation. While I do hope to eventually take this into consideration, a project of such magnitude is outside the scope of this paper.
104 Gray and Cual, above n 72.
105 IDEA Voter Turnout Database ‘France’ at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/86/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
106 IDEA Voter Turnout Database ‘New Zealand’ at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/234/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
107 A New Magna Carta, above n 1.
108 Constitution Act 1986, Public Act No 114 (13 December 1986). Crucially, this Act does not contain a ‘we the people’ clause, as many contemporary constitutions do. However, it does articulate the structure of the state and further citizen understanding of their government.
109 Some refer to these documents as ‘super-statutes’.
110 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘Colombia’ at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/82/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
111 Ibid.
112 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘Spain’ at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/103/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
113 Ibid.
114 Data available upon request. This number includes New Zealand, which passed a statutory constitutional document (Constitution Act 1986), but does not include the UK, which passed only a statutory bill of rights (Human Rights Act 1998).
115 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘Denmark’ at https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/94/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
116 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘Tunisia’ at https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/284/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
117 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘Central African Republic’ at https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/75/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
118 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘Senegal’, https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/269/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018).
119 IDEA Voter Turnout database ‘United Kingdom’ at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/137/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018). It is acknowledged that in the 2017 general election, voting turnout did climb back to 68.7%, although this remains below pre-HRA levels.
120 UK Parliament ‘Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill’ (CM3782, October 1997).
121 See eg Kavanagh, A Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.
122 D Denver and G Hands ‘Turnout’ (1997) Parliamentary Affairs 720; Pattie, C and Johnston, R ‘A low turnout landslide: abstention at the British general election of 1997’ (2001) 49 Political Studies 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
123 Denver and Hands, above n 122, at 720.
124 Pattie and Johnston, above n 122.
125 P Norris ‘Apathetic landslide’ (2001) Parliamentary Affairs 565.
126 P Whiteley et al ‘Turnout’ (2001) Parliamentary Affairs 775.
127 Ibid, at 776.
128 Norris, above n 125, at 565.
129 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Public Act No 109 (28 August 1990).
130 This is found in the Czech Republic Constitution at Art 3 (‘The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms forms part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic’). Conversely, the Charter is also found in the Slovak Republic Constitution, but was directly implemented into the document in Arts 5–54.
131 Czech Republic/Slovakia IDEA Voter Turnout database, http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/91/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018), http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/266/40 (last accessed 28 May 2018), respectively. The 1990 and 1992 voting turnout figures are the same for both the Czech and Slovak Republic, as they were still joined as a Federal Republic at the time. Before 1990 there is no voting turnout data for either country.
132 France IDEA Voter Turnout database, above n 105. In the 2017 election, French voter turnout in relation to Parliament dipped to 42.64%.
133 See eg Boyron, S ‘France’ in Oliver, D and Fusaro, C How Constitutions Change: A Comparative Study (Oxford: Hart, 2013) pp 140–142Google Scholar.
134 Ibid, p 141.
135 Eurostat voting data, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turnout.html (last accessed 20 October 2017). Figures on voter registration and voter turnout are not available.
136 See eg Caproraso, JA ‘The European Union and forms of state: westphalian, regulatory or post-modern?’ (1996) 34(1) Journal of Common Market Studies 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartolini, S Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring between the Nation State and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
137 Ibid.
138 IDEA Voter Turnout Database, ‘Canada’ at http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/74/40 (accessed 28 May 2018).
139 T Kahana ‘Canada’ in Oliver and Fusaro, above n 133, p 11.
140 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act 1982.
141 Canada Act 1982 (c 11).
142 Kahana, above n 139, p 26.
143 Ibid, p 20.
144 Studlar, DT and Matland, RE ‘The growth of women's representation in the Canadian House of Commons and the election of 1984: a reappraisal’ (1994) 27(1) Canadian Journal of Political Science 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
145 Wagenberg, RH et al. ‘Campaigns, images and polls: mass media coverage of the 1984 Canadian election’ (1988) 21(1) Canadian Journal of Political Science 117 at 126Google Scholar.
146 Pitkin, above n 81.
147 L Alexander ‘What are constitutions, and what should (and can) they do?’ in Paul, Miller and Paul, above n 13, p 23 (‘Is their acceptance itself dependent on their belief that the courts are not amending the constitution from the bench but are interpreting it?’).
148 Ibid, p 23.
149 In the 2017 snap election turnout did climb back to 68.7%, the highest since 1997 (see BBC Election 2017 Results at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results (last accessed 28 May 2018).
150 For a classic account of the judiciary as an anti-majoritarian difficulty within democracies, see Bickel, A The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; for a more contemporary account, see Waldron, J ‘The core of the case against judicial review’ (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal 1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar.