Question 1 Discuss the concept of constitutional monarchy with reference to Malaysia i. Constitutional monarchy in general Constitutional monarchy can be described as a form of government in which a monarch acts as the head of state but functions within the parameters or guidelines of a written and/or unwritten constitution. Although the government may function officially in the monarch’s name, the monarch does not set public policies or choose the political leaders. Constitutional monarchy therefore differs from absolute monarchy where the monarch controls political decision making without being restricted by constitutional constraints. Consequently, a constitutional monarch has often been defined as a sovereign who reigns but does not rule.
Absolute powers today include Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, however, in these countries the head authority is called the Amir. The other form of government is a republic. In the dictionary it is that said that a republic is a form of government where the power is in the citizens who are allowed to elect their representation. However, it is better said, a country without a king or queen and is not a monarch because not all republics are the same.
A constitution is a set of laws defining the allocation, limitation, regulation of governmental power. This power, in most liberal democracies, is separated among the three branches of the state – the legislative, the judiciary and the executive. The importance of a constitution could not be overemphasized in every country, typically in liberal democracies. Its key functions include establishing the central structure of the state’s government, granting and controlling the governmental power, and determining the way of which the government of the nation interact with its people. The existence of the constitution of the United Kingdom, however, is highly controversial due to its peculiar nature.
The medieval era was a time in which there was high monarch and very little power to the people. A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty (having full authority) is nominally embodied in a single individual. England needed a new form of government due to the circumstances that this high monarch put them through. During this period one of the most important historical events occurred which was the signing Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was a document that has a tremendous impact on England; the government and the people.
The constitutional monarchy: an impartial symbolic head of state, and always acts on the advice of minister, especially of prime minister, i.e. the monarch reigns, but does not rule. In theory, the monarch has other prerogative such as appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister; opening and dissolving of parliament, the veto of legislation, ect. Additionally, the monarch enjoys "the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn". Clearly, the powers which the monarch now exercises are more theoretical than real, but we still have our queen in Britain.
They rule what they call a monarchy. The Monarchy In contrast to such republics as the United States and France, Britain has a hereditary ruler; so Great Britain is a monarchy. Its monarch bears the title of queen or king. While English monarchs once ruled with absolute power, their role has changed , and they are now little more than figureheads. Because her powers and duties are controlled by Britain's unwritten constitution, Elizabeth II, Britain's queen since 1952, is known as a constitutional monarch.
Despite these opposing histories, there are many similarities between the two systems, which I intend to discuss. BRITAIN The United Kingdom is a democratic constitutional monarchy, with a system of government often known as the Westminster Model. It has been used as a model of governance in many countries, and undoubtedly indirectly inspired many more. Somewhat unusually, the constitution is unwritten, consisting of conventions along with statutory law and common law, which are collectively referred to as British constitutional law. The head of state and theoretical source of executive and legislative power in the UK is the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II.
These checks mean that Britain is not theoretically an “ Elective Dictatorship”, as rules still exist which means the executive can not have a dictatorial role. Britain currently is not an “ Elective Dictatorship”, as the Parliament still has some effectiveness in scrutinising the executive, however as Britain is falling more into a Prime-ministerial style government there is possibility that Britain can become an “Elective Dictatorship.”
Theory of Separation of Powers Constitution is a set of rules which details a country’s system of government (Elliott & Quinn 2009, p. 2). Most of the time, the constitution is a written document, but in Britain, the constitution cannot be found written down in one document, and is known as an unwritten constitution. There are three basic fundamental principles of Britain’s unwritten constitutional tradition which are: • The Separation of Powers; • The Supremacy of Parliament; and • The Rule of Law Separation of powers, briefly explained, is the principle that too much power should not be invested in the hands of a single person or body (Elliott & Quinn 2009, p. 1). The Theory of Separation of Powers holds that the three organs of government
In result, making the legislation and no court or higher body has legal power to declare the legislation validity. The UK constitution is uncodified which means it is unwritten. According to Professor Leyland’s he says that the history of the British constitution is significant to the current practice . For example, the Bill of Rights 1689 gave inheritance to the current principle that resulted in making the crown, House of Lords and House of common with unlimited legislative authority. Therefore, the legal sovereignty of parliament was Dicey’s regarded founding principle of the constitution.