Modern Constitutions

Wheare argues that a constitution is not simply a written document but the entire set of rules, conventions, and practices by which a state is governed. He rejects the identification of constitutions with formal texts alone, and he rejects treating classification—written versus unwritten, rigid versus flexible—as a fixed hierarchy of superiority. For Wheare, constitutional forms are analytical tools, and their real meaning emerges only when combined with political conventions, party systems, and the actual operation of government.

Wheare developed a comparative framework distinguishing written from unwritten constitutions, rigid from flexible ones based on amendment difficulty, and presidential from parliamentary systems based on the relationship between executive and legislature. He also distinguished federal from unitary constitutions, connecting this book to his earlier Federal Government. The framework was designed to enable systematic comparison rather than to rank constitutions, and it became a standard teaching device in constitutional and comparative politics, influencing how generations of students and scholars approached constitutional classification.

The two books are complementary. Federal Government focuses on the federal principle—coordinate, independent general and regional governments with a judicial arbiter—and develops the quasi-federal distinction. Modern Constitutions places federalism within a broader comparative framework of constitutional types, including written versus unwritten, rigid versus flexible, and presidential versus parliamentary. In Modern Constitutions, federal constitutions appear as one category among several, with Wheare emphasizing that federalism's operation depends on conventions and party practice, not just textual division of powers.

Wheare's classifications remain widely used as teaching tools but have been criticized as too formal and Anglo-American in emphasis. Later scholars emphasized that written and unwritten constitutions exist on a continuum, that amendment rigidity does not reliably predict constitutional stability, and that party systems and judicial power shape constitutional practice more than formal categories suggest. Comparative constitutionalism has moved toward more empirical and functional analysis. Wheare's work is still cited as a foundational statement, though often as a starting point to be revised rather than a definitive framework.

Wheare draws heavily on the British and American constitutions as contrasting models—Britain as the classic unwritten, flexible, parliamentary example and the United States as the written, rigid, presidential one. He also examines the constitutions of Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Australia, India, and South Africa, as well as European examples like France and Switzerland. These cases illustrate his point that similar formal provisions produce different outcomes depending on conventions and party systems, which is central to his comparative method.

A common misconception is that Wheare treats written constitutions as superior to unwritten ones, or rigid constitutions as stronger than flexible ones. He explicitly resists ranking them, presenting classification as a neutral analytical device. Another misreading assumes he believes a constitution's text determines political behavior; his emphasis on conventions and party practice is precisely the opposite. The book is a work of comparative description and classification, not a normative argument for any particular constitutional form.