Rigid and flexible constitution - SS1 Government Lesson Note

The main difference between rigid and flexible constitutions is the ease with which they can be amended or changed. Rigid constitutions are difficult to change, but provide stability and predictability, while flexible constitutions are easy to change, but may not provide as much stability and predictability.

A constitution can be either rigid or flexible. A rigid constitution is one that is difficult to amend or change. It usually requires a complex and lengthy process, such as the requirement of a supermajority vote or a referendum. Examples of countries with rigid constitutions include the United States and Germany.

On the other hand, a flexible constitution is one that can be easily amended or changed. It usually only requires a simple majority vote or an act of parliament. Examples of countries with flexible constitutions include the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

The main advantage of a rigid constitution is that it provides stability and predictability, as the rules and principles are not easily changed. This can help prevent abuses of power and ensure that the government operates within the limits of the law. However, a rigid constitution can also be difficult to adapt to changing circumstances, as the amendment process can be lengthy and complex.

A flexible constitution, on the other hand, allows for more fluidity and adaptability. It can be changed more easily to meet the needs of the society and respond to new challenges. However, this also means that the constitution may not provide as much stability and predictability as a rigid one.