My take is that different parts of the UK democracy are pushing the “traditions and conventions” as much as they think they can get away with. When they make their push, they believe they have enough public support behind them. Then it’s a case of “who-blinks-first.” I’m not sure this make good democracy.

This same game is being played in the USA, with a president who is pushing the boundaries of what has been done in the past. It doesn’t matter that the rules are well written and have been respected for decades. This president does not seem to care.

In the end, it is not the strength of the constitution (or lack thereof) that gives democracy its credibility. Rather it is the public’s acquiescence of letting those ambitious people govern them. Whether a constitution or a less defined set of traditions provides this acquiescence is not important. The public respects the system enough not to take to the streets. That creates our civil society.

But if either system elects leaders who are too inept or too corrupt and cannot be held accountable in some way, neither documents nor traditions will save the system.