Which is what Tony was getting at.

It does have the Magna Carta, which binds the King to a higher law than himself, and guarantees the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury to all freemen (serfs don't count), and that no freeman shall be "in any way destroyed" without due process of law. It's a landmark document, but it's not a constitution.

The British constitution is the body of common law. Along with the Magna Carta, several other important acts and charters are considered fundamental, but the British constitution itself consists of these along with the great body of tradition and interpretation of common law. As unwieldy and extensive as this is, it's a remarkably flexible instrument, and therefore has allowed the evolution of representative government under, and sometimes in opposition to, a monarchy that has been known to be a little bossy from time to time.

In spite of the absence of a central document upon which the authority of government is hung, the British seem to have muddled along rather well for almost a millennium. There are all kinds of ways for democracy to work, and every single way has one thing in common with all the others: it's a local solution developed by an individual people as a way of dealing with their unique problems within the context of their specific culture. Anything less is neither democratic nor representative.

Regards--
Mary Anne