One Vision, Three Documents: Comparing the Constitutions of the US, France, and Norway

Very few texts are more important for understanding democracy and the rule of law than national constitutions. The constitutions of France, Norway, and the United States can all be used as examples to show how these nations, despite having extremely dissimilar histories, cultures, and political systems, nonetheless share many features with one another. By comparing and analysing various constitutions, I aim to uncover insights into the workings of democratic societies, gain a broader perspective on democratic principles and practices, and inform efforts to strengthen and improve democracies worldwide.

United States Constitution

Did you know that the Constitutional Convention created the US Constitution in 1787, which has since evolved into the cornerstone of American democracy? The Articles of Confederation, which were created in 1781, had a weak and centralised government, a primary flaw, and the Constitution was written to help solve this. The new constitution required the establishment of a national court system and a less centralised structure.  This provided the federal government with a new foundation. One of the key features of the Constitution is the separation of powers, which divides the government into three branches - the executive, legislative, and judicial - to ensure that no one branch becomes too powerful and to prevent tyranny. In addition, the Bill of Rights, a unique set of ten amendments that were included four years after the Constitution was written, lists the most important individual liberties that the federal government protects.

The US Constitution still remains an important document that directs American democracy today. The First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms, are two of the most domestically significant amendments, with the latter being highly politicised and universally contested. 

For example, the former was used recently in 2017, in the case of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) vs. Becerra, which concluded that crisis pregnancy centres provided patients with information that violated the First Amendment. Another notable amendment to the US Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted in 1868 and guarantees equal protection for all citizens regardless of race, religion, and sexuality. The Fourteenth Amendment, like other amendments, increases other freedoms.  A great illustration is the Roe vs. Wade case from 1973, in which the court used the amendment to legalise and decriminalise abortion on a nationwide level. 

The US Constitution has been interpreted and used in many different contexts since it was enacted, including in the landmark Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education, which deployed the Constitution to end racial segregation in public schools. These landmark cases, and many others like them, have had significant impacts on American society and helped to shape the interpretation of the Constitution by establishing important principles of equal protection and individual liberty that have been applied in subsequent court cases and legal arguments.

French Constitution

With its deep roots in European colonisation and longer history, the current French Constitution, adopted in 1958 during Charles de Gaulle’s period in power, establishes a semi-presidential system of government in which executive power is shared between the President and the Prime Minister. This greatly differs from the US system, where the president serves as both the head of state and the head of government. 

In addition, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was added to the French Constitution in 1789 and has since preserved fundamental rights for more than two centuries, remains a key tenet of French democracy. This is because it challenged the monarchy's established power and established popular sovereignty. Its acceptance marked the start of a new age of democracy and freedom in France. 

To add to this, the Declaration served as a template for later democratic movements around the world, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.  It has also influenced how people today think about government legitimacy and human rights and has been cited as a key document in the creation of international human rights laws.

Over time, significant amendments have been made to the French Constitution in collaboration between the Senate and National Assembly. One of the most major adjustments made, and one that continues to this day, was the separation of the church and the state in France in 1905, with the establishment of the idea of laicité.  This was crucial in the strengthening of democracy because it promoted secularism and ensured the state did not interfere with citizens’ freedoms and beliefs. 

Also, France's 2005 acceptance of the European Union as a constitutional authority strengthened France's commitment to European integration, which was another key modification to its Constitution and democracy. 

Many instances have enabled the French Constitution to prove its strength, including in 1958 when it established the Constitutional Council, a body tasked with checking that legislation complies with the Constitution. Also, through the use of referendums, the French people have been given the opportunity to directly accept or reject changes to their constitution. 

This is yet another dissimilarity with the US Constitution, which itself relies on a representative democracy system to make changes. As shown by the emergence of, and rising support for, populist movements, like the ‘Gilet Jaunes’ and the challenge to traditional political parties recently, there has been considerable discussion and debate about the French Constitution. This shows the continual development of democracy in France and the pressure on the nation’s legal system to take these changes into account.

Norwegian Constitution

Lastly, Norway’s Constitution was adopted in 1814, as the Napoleonic Wars ended. Since its introduction, the Constitution has undergone a number of amendments, notably those relating to the creation of a multi-party system and the expansion of voting rights to women, culminating in the approval of universal suffrage in 1913. These modifications were made possible through a two-step procedure that required the amendment to first be approved by the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament) with a 2/3 majority vote before being re-evaluated and approved by a simple majority vote. The amendment was then passed onto the King for his formal approval. 

In contrast to the French and American Constitutions, the Norwegian Constitution places a strong focus on the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, giving the Norwegian parliament considerable control over the executive arm of government. Like the First Amendment in the US Constitution, the Norwegian Constitution has a clause guaranteeing individual rights and liberties in addition to parliamentary autonomy. These safeguards include the right to privacy and equality before the law, as well as the freedom of expression, religion, and assembly. However, the Constitution also specifies the monarch's function in the Norwegian government, that of a symbolic figurehead with little actual political authority. 

Even though each of the three constitutions have distinctive qualities, they also share many critical features. All three help define the system of government with distinct branches and checks and balances and protect personal liberties and rights, including freedom of speech, press, and religion. The US Constitution emphasises the division of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial departments, but the French Constitution focuses more emphasis on the power of the executive branch. Nevertheless, there are also notable distinctions between the two constitutions. 

Concluding Thoughts

The Norwegian Constitution places greater stress on the idea of parliamentary sovereignty than do the other two constitutions, which are more concerned with the role of the court and judicial branch. Additionally, Norway's automatic voter registration means that 80% of eligible citizens end up voting, which is around 20% more than in regular US elections. Furthermore, unlike many developed nations where politicians chase (or hide) money, Norway's politicians seem less liable to financial scandal than many of their foreign counterparts. Instead, they carry out their public duties responsibly, which can, at times, be seen to be more of a challenge for foreign politicians. Finally, Norway has a very high level of government intervention, as it is a social democracy, which is accompanied by higher taxes and higher government spending.

The democratic systems of all these three nations have faced criticism over the years, but out of the three, according to The Economist, Norway is widely regarded as one of the strongest democracies, whereas the United States and France have both recently faced significant challenges to their democratic institutions. These challenges have included questions about corruption, transparency, and the protection of individual rights. Finally, each of the Constitutions distinctly represents the national history and political environments of each country. Despite the fact that each document has advantages and disadvantages, they all play an important role in shaping the political systems of their respective countries.  UK citizens who believe a written constitution for the UK would strengthen our democracy should take note.

Marie-Alix Depuydt, Student at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, doing an internship at Unlock Democracy.