Constitutional Crisis

In political science, a constitutional crisis refers to a serious problem or conflict in the functioning of a government in which the constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to provide a clear, accepted, or workable solution. Such crises arise when constitutional mechanisms fail, are ignored, or are contested to the extent that normal governance is disrupted. Constitutional crises vary widely in scale and severity, ranging from limited institutional deadlock to systemic breakdown requiring constitutional replacement.

Definition and Core Features

A commonly cited definition describes a constitutional crisis as a situation involving the failure, or high risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions, particularly the allocation of authority, the resolution of disputes, and the maintenance of legitimate governance. The defining feature is not merely political disagreement, but a breakdown in the accepted constitutional order that prevents ordinary legal or political processes from resolving the conflict.
A constitutional crisis may occur when:

• A government attempts to act contrary to constitutional provisions.
• The constitution fails to provide guidance for an unforeseen situation.
• Constitutional rules are clear but politically impossible to follow.
• State institutions fail to perform their legally prescribed roles.
• Political actors exploit narrow or opportunistic interpretations of constitutional law to avoid responsibility.

In each case, the crisis emerges from a loss of consensus about how constitutional authority should be exercised.

Distinction from Related Phenomena

A constitutional crisis is distinct from rebellion, revolution, or coup d’état. In a constitutional crisis, the conflict occurs within the framework of government, involving disputes between branches of the state or levels of authority. By contrast, rebellions and revolutions involve external challenges to state sovereignty, often led by military forces or popular movements seeking to overthrow the existing order entirely.
Nevertheless, unresolved constitutional crises can escalate into coups, civil wars, or revolutions if legitimacy collapses and constitutional governance ceases to function.

Causes and Structural Origins

Constitutional crises often arise from conflicts between branches of government, such as disputes between the executive and judiciary or between the legislature and executive. They may also stem from tensions between central and regional governments, particularly in federal or quasi-federal systems.
Another major source is constitutional ambiguity. When constitutional text is vague or silent on a critical issue, competing interpretations may emerge. In such cases, the eventual resolution often establishes a binding precedent for future governance. A classic example is the United States presidential succession of John Tyler in 1841, which clarified that a vice president fully assumes the presidency rather than serving merely as an acting office-holder.
Crises may also arise from the deliberate violation of constitutional conventions. In systems that rely heavily on unwritten rules and political customs, such as the United Kingdom, the erosion of conventions can generate severe constitutional tension even in the absence of formal illegality.

Consequences and Risks

The consequences of a constitutional crisis can be profound. They may include:

• Administrative paralysis, preventing effective governance.
• Loss of political legitimacy and public trust.
• Democratic backsliding, including erosion of checks and balances.
• Institutional capture by dominant political actors.
• Escalation into violence, civil conflict, or state collapse.

In some cases, constitutional crises result in significant reform or the adoption of a new constitution, particularly where existing frameworks are no longer viewed as legitimate or functional.

Constitutional Crises in the United Kingdom

Although the United Kingdom lacks a single codified constitution, it possesses a recognised constitutional order based on statutes, conventions, common law, and authoritative texts. Consequently, disputes that undermine this order—such as conflicts over parliamentary sovereignty, executive power, or devolved governance—are described as constitutional crises. The absence of a codified constitution does not prevent such crises; rather, it can intensify disputes over constitutional interpretation and convention.

Historical and Comparative Examples

Numerous constitutional crises illustrate the diversity of contexts in which such conflicts arise.
In South Africa, the Coloured vote constitutional crisis of the 1950s occurred when the National Party government sought to disenfranchise Coloured voters in the Cape Province. After judicial resistance, the government restructured the Senate to override the courts, raising fundamental questions about constitutional supremacy and judicial independence.
In the United States, the secession crisis of 1860–1861 revealed the inability of constitutional mechanisms to resolve disputes over federal authority and slavery, culminating in civil war. Earlier, the XYZ Affair and the subsequent Alien and Sedition Acts triggered a constitutional confrontation over free speech and states’ rights, expressed through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis centred on the dismissal of the Prime Minister by the Governor-General, highlighting ambiguities in the reserve powers of the Crown and producing lasting debate over constitutional conventions.
In Africa, the Congo Crisis of 1960 arose when the President and Prime Minister attempted to dismiss each other, leading to military intervention and prolonged instability. Malawi experienced a constitutional crisis in 2012 concerning presidential succession, ultimately resolved through constitutional interpretation in favour of the Vice-President.
In Egypt, the removal of President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 left a constitutional vacuum, followed by renewed crisis after the military removal of President Mohamed Morsi in 2013. These events demonstrated how constitutional breakdown can accompany revolutionary change.
In Asia, multiple states have experienced constitutional crises. Malaysia faced significant crises in 1988, involving judicial independence, and again in 2020 during a disputed change of government. Pakistan has repeatedly experienced constitutional crises linked to executive–judicial conflict and parliamentary dissolution, notably in 1997 and 2022. Thailand’s 2005–2006 crisis stemmed from electoral deadlock and executive refusal to resign, while Sri Lanka’s 2018 crisis involved competing claims to the prime ministership.
More recently, constitutional crises have occurred in Georgia following disputed elections and competing claims to presidential legitimacy, and in Somalia, where constitutional amendments triggered the withdrawal of recognition by federal member states.