Foreign Concept

I had a most interesting European Gov't & Politics lecture yesterday. The topic was British gov't, and I learned quite a bit.

There is no written constitution. I've known this, but I never realized the full implications. Nowhere is it written that there needs to be a legislative body called Parliament; nowhere is the position of Prime Minister mandated. Parliament is required to hold elections every five years, except when they decide to vote to suspend elections. (To be fair, that has only happened once, in 1940, during the bleakest hour of WWII.) There is nothing comparable to the American Bill of Rights; indeed, in the American understanding of the term, Brits do not have guaranteed rights. Officially, Britain is not even secular, since the Head of State (monarch) is also the Head of the Church. One House of Parliament (House of Lords) is appointed rather than elected.

And no one is concerned about this. They're not really bothered that one house of the legislature is not answerable to the people; they're not worried that the government is not officially obligated to respect their right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. When I asked Dr. Fosdal about why continuing House of Lords reform wasn't high on the priority list, he just kind of shrugged. "It's been around for ever, literally 1000 years. And no one knows what to do with it--no one knows what the House of Lords should look like. The public doesn't really care that much, and the politicians can't be bothered to undertake the complex task of re-envisioning and reforming it, not when what we have seems to work all right."

He told another story that I found entertaining: "Once I was invited to the investiture of a life peer [official giving of title to a new member of the House of Lords]. After he took the oath, he bowed to the throne that's in the chamber three times. Afterward, I asked him why three times. And he just shrugged and said, 'No one knows'. And that pretty much sums up our entire system, really: no one has any idea why we do what we do except that it's been done that way for longer than anyone can remember."

I do not understand this. It's the first time I've become aware of an essential difference in...I don't know...consciousness, maybe...spirit? attitude? perspective? I can't find the right word, forgive me...between American and British. The idea of a House of Lords, of no clearly written guarantee of basic rights, of no official check to governmental power, outrages me. Institutions should not exist simply because they have always existed; on the other hand, the future existence of current, useful institutions should not just be assumed without something concrete holding them up. It is a system with no objective or reasoned foundation. Instead, it has been crafted piecewise over the last millennium, with no clear target or destination. It is the Brits' easy acceptance of their odd system that feels most foreign to me here, more foreign than pounds sterling, effective public transportation, and tea with milk.

Of course, I cannot get my head around the British perspective of their own system. They are inundated with their 1000 years of history; at home I marvel at things dating back more than 100 years. I read a quip somewhere: "For Americans, 100 miles is nothing and 100 years is a fantastic distance. For the British, it's the opposite." After 1000 years, things must inevitably become entrenched--as much as I cannot imagine living under a monarch, the British (mostly, anyway) can't imagine not having one, however outdated it may seem. At what point do things become inseparable from national identity--and if they are, what would be the effect of tearing them away? One thousand years of history could be halted by one vote in Parliament...at what cost?

When I was in Oxford, I was told about the ridiculously antiquated uniform the students are required to wear to their exams. It's been University policy since like the 16th century or something absurd. And every ten or fifteen years, students protest it for being antiquated. But ultimately everyone decides they don't really want to get rid of it, even if it is archaic, because it's a unifying tradition.

As I left class last night and hopped on the London Underground, I thought about my pocket-sized copy of the Constitution. My senior year I went on a school-sponsored trip to DC, and we had all been given them. I'd given it no thought since high school, when pocket Constitutions had been fodder for jokes among my high school friends (We didn't get out much, clearly. Explains a lot, I am sure.). Suddenly I wished I had it with me, because its uniqueness and brilliance had just truly hit me full force. It is a beautiful document, an elegant and well-reasoned plan of government. To even have a plan, a framework, is tremendous. To have such a carefully thought out plan, one that was able to provide for a future wildly different than anything anyone could have imagined in the 18th century, is nothing short of miraculous. I settled for going over it online when I got home.

Certainly, the American system is riddled with flaws and abuses of power. Ironically, perhaps even more so than the British system. I'm not naive and am usually quite cynical when it comes to politics and gov't. But even Bush and Cheney, though they gave it their best effort, couldn't overcome our Constitution. No matter how displeased we are with our government, we know with surety that terms will end and elections will take place at the appointed time. And we know why that is. Every branch of our government was designed mindfully, with a clear purpose. We know the answer to "why"--and it is a far more satisfying answer than "because it's always been done like that."

So, I am officially adding another entry to the list of things I miss: a brilliantly written Constitution.