A written constitution might be a good idea – but it won’t save us from the idiots

If you want evidence a codified constitution is not a panacea, take a look across the Atlantic, where another ill mannered demagogue dedicated to trashing convention holds sway

Could a written constitution save us from the worst instincts of a gangster government?

As the double headed monster that is Dominic Cummings/Boris Johnson torches Britain’s unwritten one, the prospect is being raised seriously by serious people. It’s nice to see we still have a few of them in a Britain whose prime minister compares himself to a bright green Marvel Comics character.

No wonder. Our system rests on the assumption that our rulers will be “good chaps” and work within the boundaries of longstanding convention. This they have largely done. Until now.

Johnson and his team have driven a coach and horses through that convention. Even now, they continue to equivocate about obeying the law of the land.

The latest example of the depths to which they will stoop comes courtesy of Cummings (again).

If the Supreme Court agrees with Scotland’s highest court that Johnson’s suspension of Parliament is illegal he could, according to Cummings, just suspend it a second time.

A joke, Number Ten later said. Would someone care to point me in the direction of any humour?

Small wonder that consideration is being given to how we might better maintain order, and the law, in future.

But while a written constitution might well be a good idea – it’s something I’ve long supported – it would not be a panacea.

If you want evidence, take a look across the Atlantic, where another ill mannered demagogue dedicated to trashing convention holds sway.

Donald Trump has overseen the separation of migrant families at the US border, an obscene money grab on the behalf of the super rich, made repeated attacks on the free press, encouraged violence against people protesting his misrule, and even said there were “good people” among the neo-Nazis who took to the streets in Charlottesville.

None of these things, terrible as they are, violate the US constitution.

He suffered a notable setback when US courts ruled against his Muslim travel ban, only for the US Supreme Court to reverse their decision by upholding a revised version, courtesy of its Conservative majority.

That majority has been bolstered by Trump’s appointment of ideological soulmates whose interpretation of the constitution can be counted on to align with his own.

One of them, Neil Gorsuch said during his confirmation hearings: “I do not see Republican judges, and I do not see Democrat judges. I see judges.”

Analyses of their voting patterns suggest justice isn’t anything like as blind as he implies.

While there have been instances of justices ruling against type, and moving away from their ideological homes after their appointments, neither Gorsuch nor Brett Kavanagh, who has faced repeated allegations of sexual misconduct that he has denied, seem like good candidates to do this.

Trump appears to have the court in his pocket. And his allies on the religious right are already flexing their muscles in an attempt to use that to test the hallowed separation of church and state.

A professor of government could doubtless point to many better ways of selecting justices to a body which a potential written British constitution could look to.

The justices serving on Britain’s existing Supreme Court, who do not currently have the power to strike down legislation on constitutional grounds, aren’t political appointees, although the lord chancellor in theory has the power to reject candidates put forward by a selection commission.

Nor do they have unlimited tenure.

But where am I going with this? The key point is that a written constitution doesn’t necessarily protect against assholes, or arseholes, with questionable mandates deciding the rules don’t apply to them.

If bad people have the will they can do bad things regardless of whether they live under a written or an unwritten constitution.

All it requires is for them to have sufficient numbers of enablers and for those responsible for upholding the checks and balances that are essential in any democratic system to either fail in their duties, or to join their number.

Johnson, Cummings and their allies seem determined to test Britain’s constitutional arrangements. Maybe the Supreme Court will stop them. Parliament can’t do anything more because, of course, it’s not sitting. It has had a crack with the anti-no deal law, which may also test the mettle of the courts.

We are in a very dangerous place. If you want to see how dangerous, read your 20th century history. Tyrannies don’t always require guns for their establishment. Cynics, cheerleaders and weak men and women will do the job well enough.