It is generally believed that the Anglo-Saxon tradition of the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy is Britain's greatest contribution to civic legacy. It has its drawbacks. But many However, many take it as the most ideal set of norms enabling the fruition of the best qualities of human socio-political existence. Take for instance the recent peaceful passage of the power from Rishi Sunak's Conservative Party to Sir Keir Starmark's Labour. Barring few incidents, there was palpable absence absence of the raucous rancor that characterize the politics of the other great democracy across the Atlantic, the United States of America. It is possible with the salience of ultra- right political actors such as Nigel Farage, the values associated with governance by 'good chaps, will eventually erode. But as of now the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, extolled by Lord AV Dicey and his ilk, reigns supreme. The institutions thus fashioned by a broad consensual societal admiration in the past two centuries for classical Greece, managed to lay the foundation of the unique political structure called the British Constitution.

But does such a constitution really exist? Not in any codified form. In other words, it is not written down in a single document. Nor can it ever be. For, it is actually an amalgam of beliefs, traditions, and practices drawn from diverse sources. These are : One, historical understandings such as the Magna Carta signed by King John with his feudal adversaries in 1125: Two , statutes and laws passed by the legislature: Three, common law which comprise judgments and customs recognized by the Courts: our , Parliamentary Conventions of the sovereign King-in Parliament whose decisions can never be unconstitutional: Five , the 'rule of law', which broadly asserts the right of any person to do anything "unless the law says otherwise": And six, works of authority by astute minds in society whose legal interpretations are cited as sources of Constitutional Law.

One such person of the latter kind was Walter Bagehot. In 1867 he crafted the first ever significant volume on the subject of 'The English Constitution'. Bagehot argued that the critical element in the system was the fusion between the "dignified" (monarchy) and "efficient" (Parliament) parts. The former's role was "exciting and preserving the reverence of the population", and that of the latter was "working and ruling". He saw an important role of the monarch, involving the rights, "to be consulted", "to encourage", and "to warn".

The government was something wider than the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. It was noticeable that on 5 July some time had elapsed between Rishi Sunak's resignation to King Charles and the King's invitation to Keir Starmer to form government, ie, the "kissing of hands" (in the past the acceptance of such offer was done by the designated Prime Minister "kissing "the monarch's hands, and hence the expression: however, in modern times a "handshake" at the Palace suffices). In that interim period even if there was no Prime Minister and Cabinet in the UK, there was government in the form of the King, the Privy council, the House of Lords, the Courts, the Church of England, the Bank of England, the local governments, and the apolitical civil service and the armed forces.

Codified Constitutions, where they exist, as in the US, mainly enjoy supremacy because they function as a principal public compact, or 'Social Contract'. This is extrapolated from the ideas of philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu, the main propounders of the principle of 'separation pf power". In these cases, the Constitution defines the relationship between the component States of the Federation and the Federal Authority. Hence the process of alterations after the Constitution is agreed upon are rendered difficult as it gives the component States a modicum of protection. The 'separation of power', mainly between the Executive, legislature and Judiciary, is clearly demarcated to contain the excessive powers of the executive. Nonetheless at times they intersect, urging restraining calm on one another when circumstances so demand.

It is not always understood that 'separation of power' is also sought to be followed in unitary situations like the UK, as in the federal system as in the US. Indeed, that is viewed as the hallmark of democracy. In Britain, where institutions like the independent judiciary, the armed forces and the civil services, the Bank of England, and the House of lords also exercise restraining powers on the elected executive. Each has a space of operation recognized in the unwritten Constitution, even though it is not formally codified. That is because in the most ideal circumstances, a first- past-the-post voting system with single member constituencies will mathematically produce elected governments with minority popular support. This challenges the theory that "election victories" in such cases are reason for "absolute power", or what Lord Hailsham had called "elected dictatorship". That is why even though in the UK elections, Labour won a whopping majority of 412 seats of a total of 650, because it did so with only 34 percent of electoral votes, Keir Starmer needed to be conciliatory and inclusive in his first speech as Prime Minister. It was only being pragmatic!

The beauty of uncodified Constitutions, of course, is that, once democratic deficiencies are identified, course corrections can be easily undertaken. The Westminster model enjoys an in-built capacity to address democratic dilemmas. There is need to bear in mind that in in all mature political milieu, or in any that aims at maturity, which includes Bangladesh, that rigidity in conforming to 'a priori' constructs like codified State principles can be relaxed. Flexibility will enhance the capacity to be resilient in terms of response to the need of the current times to be better able to act in consonance with public aspirations. The principle Vox Populi Vox Dei ('The voice of the people is the voice of God') still underpins democratic governance. That is what lends strength to the system and buttresses its sustainability. To have it otherwise would be to fly against the face, not just political propriety, but also prudence!

Ambassador Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury (Retd.) PhD, President, Cosmos Foundation and Former Foreign Advisor, Bangladesh Caretaker Government (2007-2009)