Can one understand the true nature of the UK constitution through different theories of constitutionalism?

Give reasons for your answer with reference to legal constitutionalism, political constitutionalism and transformative constitutionalism

This question focuses on the material covered in Unit 1, which is constitutionalism. In the lectures for Unit 1 students were introduced to different theories of constitutionalism - legal constitutionalism, political constitutionalism, transformative constitutionalism and liberal constitutionalism.

Better answers provided a definition of 'constitutionalism'. Jeff King (whose reading was part of the first tutorial) stated that constitutionalism was based on three pillars - that a constitution should protect against arbitrary powers, to ensure that power is not concentrated and to regulate relations between the state and its citizens. There are other definitions which could have been cited. Students should explain the meaning behind the definition and its implications.

The types of constitutionalism differ in precisely how the government should be limited.

Political constitutionalism argues that a government is best limits in its powers through political means, such as elections.

Legal constitutionalism argues that a government is best limited in its powers through legal means, such as Judicial Review.

Transformative constitutionalism may be described as the process of overcoming the deficiencies of liberal constitutions through transforming the constitution of a state.

Weaker answers listed the types of constitutionalism mentioned in the question. Stronger answers adopted a clear position - is it possible to understand the UK constitution through different theories of constitutionalism?

In lectures and tutorials, we have reinforced ways in which legal and political constitutionalism form part of the contested basis of parts of the constitution. For example, judicial review involves a debate over the proper role of the judges against Parliament and the executive. The separation of powers could also be considered, or the Human Rights Act 1998.

For the highest marks, we expected clear examples of what each type of constitutionalism entails (for example reference to South Africa with respect to transformative constitutionalism). The actual argument that was made and conclusions reached was less important than a clear structure, a well explained argument, backed up with clear examples and evidence.