CONTENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONS.

The shape and content of any constitution depends on the history, environment and
character of the community it is intended to govern, it necessarily follows that there
are different kinds of constitutions in the world since all states differ in many
respects. One kind of constitution which suits one country may be unsuitable for
another.

However, three factors may be said to be paramount in any reasonable constitution

namely, democracy, the rights of the individual and of a good just and effective
government of the people. In the last analysis, the constitution is judged according to
the kind of government it allows to operate in society because government is the
principal agent the state.

1. WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
A constitution is said to be written when the most important constitutional laws are
specifically enacted, that is, all legal rules regulating the allocation of powers,
functions and structures are contained in one or more documents. This arrangement
is commonly approved by a referendum of the electorate. In such a constitution, the
laws constituting the basis of the state are specified in one formal document or a
series of formal documents which are binding on the courts and all persons
concerned.

Since it is not practicable for a written constitution to contain more than a selection of
constitutional laws, it is invariably supplemented as prescribed in the constitution, by
amendments passed in the prescribed manner, by organic laws and other legislation
passed in the ordinary way from time to fill in gaps usually but judicial decisions
interpreting the written documents and by customs and conventions regulating the
working of the machinery of government. Almost all constitution in the world happens
to be written constitutions.
2. UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION
A constitution is said to be unwritten where some of the fundamental laws are to be
ascertained from sources other than the written document. In such circumstances,
there only exists a system of laws, customs and conventions which define the
composition and powers of organs of the state and regulate the relations of the
various state organs to one another and to the private citizen. An example is the
British constitution which is described as ‘unwritten’ because it is not embodied
wholly or mainly in any enactment or formally related series of enactments.

3. UNITARTY CONSITUTION
A unitary constitution is characterized by a single constitution which is the only
document referred to in the governance of the country and it gives powers to
different organs, individuals and institutions.

All power is concentrated in the central government. All powers and functions of the
local government are determined by the central government and its organs like the
executive and legislature. The judiciary may at any time limit those local government
powers because they are entrenched by the government of the day.
Unitary constitution tends to be flexible in terms of amendment that is there is no
requirement to consult any regional assembly or council to carry out the amendment.
It will usually have a single parliament which adopts a uni-cameral ministry at the
national level.

Advantages of A Unitary Constitution

 Unitary systems of government bring about equal development or balance
throughout the country. It is one government which plans and is conscious of
the needs of the different regions in federal systems; some areas may lark
behind because of the uneven distribution of resources.
 Unitary systems create national unity because it promotes the idea of one
nation and symbol hence people begin to think nationally in contrast to federal
where people think more about their states.
 It’s argued that federal systems are expensive to maintain. For example, the
privileges that are given to various leaders therefore a unitary system reduces
the cost burden on a poor country.
 It is also argued that a unitary system leads to maximum exploitation of all
national resources both human and material. There is free flow of humans
from one state to another in contrast with federal which has a restriction
leading to a deficit in some areas. It also leads to infirmity in decision making,
that is, decisions are made and apply to the whole country discrimination of
favour.

4. FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS

The general characteristic of a federal constitution is that powers are distributed

between the central government and local authorities by the constitution itself and
any violation can lead to a constitution crisis. In a federal system of government,
there will be a national constitution or the sovereign state, and each state will have
its constitution, in other words, everybody will at all times be subject to two
constitutions. The federal should not contradict the national constitution.

A constitution can provide for a list of powers of functions which are to be enjoyed or
exercised by the central government. This implies that the rest of the powers not
mentioned in this list are within the province of the local authority, for example,
powers of security, defence and foreign affairs usually belong to the central
government.

Each federal state has fully fledged government, ministries, a judicial body, and
members of parliament. Furthermore, the power to raise taxes may be shared
between the national government and the federal government. Federal tax will be
clearly stated in the constitution and so will the state taxes.
Federal constitutions usually require elaborate procedures for amendment and there
is usually a clause which provides that any amendment in the constitution which
affects the distribution of power between the central government and the state
should seek the consent from the people concerned.

Federal constitutions usually provide bi-chemical legislations, that is composed of

two distinct bodies for example the United States of America which has the congress
and the house of senate. The upper chamber is basically to protect the federal
structure so that without its consent, the constitution cannot be amended.

5. MONARCHICAL CONSTITUTION

A constitution may be classified according to the method by which the head of state
is elected. It may be a monarchical or republican constitution. A constitution is said to
be monarchical where a head of state is not elected but becomes head of state
usually succeeds either his father or somebody within the limited royal line.

Monarchical constitution may vary from one country to another, both in form and in
the way powers are granted to the monarchy. In that respect, a monarchy may be
constitutional or absolute.

A constitutional monarchy is that one which rules according to an established

constitution and it is written down. Its role and powers are set out in the constitution
which usually limits the power that may be enjoyed or exercised by the monarchy. In
such monarchs, the head of state , the king or queen does not have executive
powers, the powers of government are usually left to be to be exercised by elected
leaders, for example the British monarchy.

A monarch may also be absolute, that is, one who rules without reference to
democratic institutions which do not exist. He exercises all powers whether they are
executive, legislative or judicial.

N.B: most monarchs are constitutional.

Advantages of A Monarchy

 It is embodiment of a nation and is usually a unifying factor as far as both

domestic and international cares are concerned. A monarch by its very nature
usually avoids frost hand politics and therefore becomes acceptable to the
majority of the people.
 A monarch can be used as a tool for mobilizing all resources from the country
for development purposes because its political views, opinions and
recommendations are not treated with suspicion.
 They tend to preserve culture and cultural institutions which is their main role
so they perpetuate the good points in people’s way of living.
  A monarch tends to avoid conflicts over leadership because nobody aspires to
rule unless he has been ordained by God. Sometimes, it promotes good
training for purposes of leadership hence the creation of experience leaders.

Disadvantages of Monarchies.

 They tend to be undemocratic institutions; people are not given a chance to

either reject or accept a particular leader and he rules until he dies.
 Some monarchs tend to be arbitrary and dictatorial where there are no strong
democratic institutions to check them. So if it accumulates a lot of power, it is
likely to be undemocratic.
 Monarchs tend to be parasitic in that they live on the sweat of the population
without a corresponding contribution to society.
 It negates the idea of equality persons, that is, some people get privileged and
others are denied opportunities by virtue of their birth. Allocation of resources
may be according to class.
 Because of the nature of the monarch, where loyalty calls for obedience, this
tends to results into track of accountability and transparency.

6. REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONS

A republic or republican constitution or government is where the leaders are elected

by the people, that is a system which enables people to participate in determining
which person will be their leader and they will be able to change that person. it
provides for equality of all persons and lays no emphasis on special privileges, titles
and traditional rights.

All persons are deemed to be equal and subject to the constitutional requirements.
All persons are eligible to hold public office at all levels and there is no discrimination
on grounds of birth.

7. RIGID (ENTRENCHED) VERSUS FLEXIBLE CONSTITUTIONS

The terms rigid/flexible constitution are opposites signifying how constitutions can be
revised and the extent to which they are able to adjust to changing circumstances
This is a useful categorization of constitutions is whether they are rigid or flexible.
This categorization refers to how easily a constitution can be amended and how
easily the constitutional landscape and framework can change. A constitution is said
to be rigid when it is difficult to amend or change.

It is said to be flexible when it is more easily amended. The advantages of a rigid

constitution include the establishment of a stable and reliable legal landscape, the
heightened protection of constitutional rights and values, and perhaps increasingly
consistent enforceability of constitutional structures and provisions. Flexible
constitutions, in contrast, allow the constitution and the government to act and react
more easily as times change. They prevent future generations from being bound by
past commitments when it no longer serves the common good. They provide less
protection, however, against actors or parties in power who wish to change the
constitution or diminish constitutional protections in order to serve their self-interests
(See amendment or revision of constitutions. Particularly chapter 18 of the
1995 Constitution)

The following are the merits of a flexible constitution:

(1) It prevents internal revolts and revolutions:

In a flexible constitution the nation is protected against internal revolts and

revolutions. For instance, there have been fewer revolts and revolutions in England
because of the flexible constitution of that country. The life of the people because of
the flexible constitutions of that country.

The life of the people has not been disturbed there quite often, while in France,
which is very close to England, monarchy has been abolished and so far five
constitutions have been enacted because of revolutions and odd circumstances.

Freeman, while praising the British Constitution, remarks, “The continued national
life of the people, notwithstanding foreign conquerors and internal revolutions, has
remained unbroken for fourteen hundred years. At no moment has the tie between
the present and the past been wholly rent asunder, at no moment have Englishmen
sat down to put together a wholly new constitution in obedience to some dazzling
theory. Each step in our growth has been the natural consequence of some earlier
step, each change in our law and constitution has not the bringing in of any-thing
wholly new but the development and improvement of something that was already
old”.

(2) Adjustment:

Adaptability or elasticity is the chief merit of a flexible constitution. It enables the

people to keep pace with changes in society. The British Constitution, for instance,
has been able to undergo imperceptible alterations, apart from deliberate
amendments in recent years. There has been a tremendous change in the powers of
the monarch.

Now absolute monarchy remains in theory in England and in practice the powers of
the monarch have become limited. The monarch has only the power to warn, to
advice and to encourage his or her ministers and to seek any information from them
regarding the administration.

(3) With the maturity of the nation, the constitution alto develops:

A flexible constitution is very useful for a developing country, because it is a great

expression of its development. Judge Cooley has rightly said, “Of all the constitutions
which may come into existence for the Government of the people, the most excellent
is obviously that which is the natural outgrowth of the national life and which have
grown and extended as the nation has matured is likely at any particular time to
express principles of civil and political liberty”.
Demerits of Flexible Constitution:

The following are the demerits of a flexible constitution:

(1) Instability:

A flexible constitution is said to be in a state of perpetual flex and it is less stable

than a rigid constitution because it can be easily amended. It is liable to fall a prey to
the whims and caprices of political demagogues who are moved by passions and
emotions rather than by reason.

(2) Instrument in the hands of the Judges:

A flexible constitution becomes a plaything of judicial courts, because they interpret it

according to their own will and give it a meaning of their own liking and choice.

(3) Unsuitable for politically backward people:

It is most unsuitable for countries which are not politically advanced. That is why a
flexible constitution is not useful for most of the countries of the world and in place of
flexible constitution, they have enacted written constitutions. The British Constitution
is the only example of a flexible constitution in the world; otherwise almost all other
countries of the world have rigid constitutions.

Since the British people are politically advanced, they have been successful in the
working of their flexible constitution.

(4) Vague and indefinite:

An important defect of a flexible constitution is that it is vague and indefinite and the
politicians give it meanings of their own choice. That is why vague and indefinite
constitutions are not suitable for democracies.

The merits and demerits of rigid constitutions are the opposite side of the above.