The
Westminster system is a
democratic parliamentary system of
government modelled after the
politics of the United
Kingdom.
This term comes from the Palace of
Westminster
, the seat of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom
.
The system is a series of procedures for operating a
legislature. It is used, or was once used, in
the national legislatures and
subnational legislatures of most
Commonwealth and
ex-Commonwealth nations upon being granted
responsible government, beginning
with the first of the
Canadian provinces in 1848 and the six
Australian colonies between 1855 and 1890.
There are other parliamentary systems whose procedures differ
considerably from the Westminster system.
Headline text
Key characteristics
Important features of the Westminster system include the following,
although not all of the following aspects have been preserved in
every Westminster-derived system:
- a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or
theoretical holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly
consist of performing the role of a ceremonial figurehead. Examples include the
British monarch, the presidents of many countries and state/provincial governors in federal
systems.
- a head of government (or head
of the executive), known as the prime
minister (PM), premier or first minister, who is officially appointed
by the head of state. In practice, the head of government is almost
always the leader of the largest elected party in parliament.
- a de facto executive branch usually made up of
members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive
in a cabinet led by the head of
government; such members execute executive authority on behalf of
the nominal or theoretical executive authority.
- parliamentary
opposition (a multi-party
system);
- an elected legislature, often bicameral, in which at least one house is
elected, although unicameral systems
also exist; legislative members are usually elected by district in
first-past-the-post elections
(as opposed to country-wide proportional representation).
Exception
to this are New
Zealand
which changed to proportional representation,
Israel
which always used country wide proportional
representation and Australia which uses
Preferential voting.
- a lower house of parliament with an
ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking)
Supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or
defeating a confidence motion.
The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or
forced into a general election,
independently of a new government being chosen.
- a parliament which can be dissolved and elections called at
any time.
- parliamentary privilege,
which allows the Legislature to discuss any issue deemed by itself
to be relevant, without fear of consequences stemming from
defamatory statements or records thereof.
- minutes of meetings, often known as
Hansard, including an ability for the
legislature to strike discussion from these minutes.
Most of
the procedures of the Westminster system have originated with the
conventions, practices and
precedents of the Parliament of
the United Kingdom, which are a part of what is known as the Constitution of the United
Kingdom. Unlike the
unwritten British constitution, most
countries that use the Westminster system have
codified the system in a written
constitution.
However, uncodified conventions, practices and precedents continue
to play a significant role in most countries, as many constitutions
do not specify important elements of procedure: for example, some
older constitutions using the Westminster system do not mention the
existence of the cabinet and/or the prime minister, because these
offices were taken for granted by the authors of these
constitutions. Sometimes these conventions, reserve powers and
other influences collide in times of crisis, and in such times the
weaknesses of the unwritten aspects of the Westminster system, as
well as the strengths of the Westminster system's flexibility, are
put to the test. One of the best, and the most recent example, is
the
1975 Australian Constitutional
Crisis, when the Governor-General of Australia,
Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister
Gough Whitlam on his own reserve power
authority and replaced him with Opposition Leader
Malcolm Fraser.
Operation
The pattern of executive functions within a Westminster System is
quite complex. In essence, the
head of
state, usually a
monarch or
president, is a ceremonial figurehead who is the
theoretical, nominal or
de jure source of
executive power within the system. In practice, such a figure does
not actively exercise executive powers, even though executive
authority may be exercised in his/her name.
The
head of government, usually
called the
prime minister or
premier, will ideally have the support of a majority
in the responsible house, and must in any case be able to ensure
the existence of no
absolute
majority against the government. If the parliament passes a
resolution of no confidence,
or refuses to pass an important
bill such as the
budget, then the government must either resign so
that a different government can be appointed or seek a
parliamentary dissolution so that
new general elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny
the government's mandate.
Executive authority within a Westminster System is essentially
exercised by the Cabinet, along with more junior
minister, although the head of
government usually has the dominant role within the ministry. In
the United Kingdom, the sovereign theoretically holds executive
authority, even though the
Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom and the
Cabinet effectively implement
executive powers. In a
parliamentary republic like India,
the
President is the de jure
executive, even though executive powers are essentially instituted
by the
Prime Minister of
India and the
Council of
Ministers.
As an example, the Prime Minister and Cabinet (as the
de facto executive body in the system) generally
must seek the permission of the head of state when carrying out
executive functions. If, for instance the
British Prime Minister wished to
dissolve parliament in
order for a
general election to
take place, the Prime Minister is constitutionally bound to request
permission from the
sovereign in
order to attain such a wish. This power (along with others such as
appointing
minister in the
government, appointing
diplomats, declaring
war, and signing
treaties, for example) are known as the
Royal Prerogative, which in modern times
are exercised by the sovereign solely on the
advice of the Prime Minister. Since
the British sovereign is a
constitutional monarch, he or she
abides by the advice of his or her ministers, except when executing
reserve powers in times of
crisis.
This custom also occurs in other Westminster Systems in the world,
in consequence from the influence of
British colonial rule. In
Commonwealth Realms such as Canada, New
Zealand or Australia, the Prime Minister is obligated to seek
permission from the
Governor-General when implementing
executive decisions, in a manner similar to the British practice.
An
analogous scenario also exists in Commonwealth Republics, such as India
or Trinidad and
Tobago
.
The head of state will often hold meetings with the head of
government and cabinet, as a means of keeping abreast of
governmental policy and as a means of advising, consulting and
warning ministers in their actions. Such a practice takes place in
the United Kingdom and India. In the UK, the sovereign holds
confidential weekly meetings with the Prime Minister to discuss
governmental policy and to offer her opinions and advice on issues
of the day. In India, the Prime Minister is constitutionally bound
to hold regular sessions with the President, in a similar manner to
the aforementioned British practice. In essence, the head of state,
as the theoretical executive authority, "reigns but does not rule".
This phrase means that the head of state's role in government is
generally ceremonial and as a result does not directly institute
executive powers. The
reserve powers
of the head of state are sufficient to ensure compliance with some
of their wishes. However, the extent of such powers varies from one
country to another and is often a matter of controversy.
Such an executive arrangement first emerged in the United Kingdom.
Historically, the
British
sovereign held and directly exercised all executive authority.
George I of Great Britain was the
first British monarch to delegate some executive powers to a Prime
Minister and a cabinet of the ministers, largely because he was
also the monarch of Hanover
in Germany
and did not speak fluent English. Over time, arrangement
continued to exercise executive authority on the sovereign's
behalf. Such a concept was reinforced in
The English Constitution
(1876) by
Walter Bagehot, who
emphasised the "dignified" and "efficient" aspects of government.
In this sense Bagehot was stating that the sovereign should be a
focal point for the
nation, while the PM and
cabinet actually undertook executive decisions.
Role of the head of state
The
head of state or his/her
representative (such as a
governor
general), formally invites the
head of government to form a government
(that is, an
administration). In the UK, this
is known as
kissing hands. There are
notable exceptions to the above in the Republic of Ireland, where
the
President of Ireland has a
mandate through
direct election, and the
Taoiseach (prime minister) prior to
appointment by the President of Ireland is nominated by the
democratically elected lower house,
Dáil Éireann.
Because of the mandate and the potentially significant
constitutional powers of the Irish president, some authorities
believe the Irish constitution is as similar to
semi-presidential systems as it is
to Westminster. Similarly, under the constitutions of some
Commonwealth countries, a president or Governor-General may possess
clearly significant
reserve powers.
One example is the
Australian
constitutional crisis of 1975, in which the Governor-General
dismissed the Prime Minister, who held a majority in the
Australian House of
Representatives. Because of differences in their written
constitutions, the formal powers of presidents and
Governors-General vary greatly from one country to another.
However, as Governors-General are not directly elected, they lack
the popular mandate held, for example, by an Irish president.
Because of this, Governors-General rarely risk the public
disapproval which could result from their making unilateral and/or
controversial uses of their powers.
Although the dissolution of the legislature and the call for new
elections is formally done by the head of state, by convention the
head of state acts according to the wishes of the head of
government.
In exceptional circumstances the head of state may either refuse a
dissolution request, as in the Canadian
King-Byng Affair, or
dismiss the government, as in the Australian crisis
of 1975. Either action is likely to bend or break existing
conventions. The
Lascelles
Principles were an attempt to create a convention to cover
similar situations, but have not been tested in practice.
Cabinet government
In
The English Constitution, Bagehot emphasised the divide
of the constitution into two components, the Dignified (that part
which is symbolic) and the Efficient (the way things actually work
and get done), and called the Efficient "
Cabinet Government". Although there have
been many works since emphasising different aspects of the
"Efficient", no one has seriously questioned Bagehot's premise that
the divide exists in the Westminster system.
Members of the Cabinet are collectively seen as responsible for
government policy. All Cabinet decisions are made by consensus, a
vote is rarely taken in a Cabinet meeting. All ministers, whether
senior and in the Cabinet, or junior ministers, must support the
policy of the government publicly regardless of any private
reservations. When a
Cabinet
reshuffle is imminent, a lot of time is taken up in the
conversations of politicians and in the news media, speculating on
who will, or will not, be moved in and out of the Cabinet by the
Prime Minister, because the appointment of ministers to the
Cabinet, and threat of dismissal from the Cabinet, is the single
most powerful constitutional power which a Prime Minister has in
the political control of the Government in the Westminster
system.
Linked to Cabinet government is the idea, at least in theory, that
ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments. It
is no longer considered to be an issue of resignation if the
actions of members of their department, over whom the minister has
no direct control, make mistakes or formulate procedures which are
not in accordance with agreed policy decisions. One of the major
powers of the Prime Minister under the Westminster system is to
decide when a fellow minister is accountable for the actions of a
department.
The
Official Opposition and
other major political parties not in the Government, will mirror
the governmental organisation with their own
Shadow Cabinet made up of
Shadow Ministers.
Bicameral and unicameral parliaments
In a Westminster system, some members of parliament are elected by
popular vote, while others are appointed.
All Westminster-based
parliaments have a lower house with
powers based on those of the House of Commons
(under various names), comprising local, elected
representatives of the people. Most also have a smaller
upper house, which is made up of members chosen by various methods:
- De
facto appointees of the cabinet or premier (such as the Canadian Senate and most members of the
British House of
Lords
)
- Direct election (such as the Australian Senate)
- Election by sub-national governments (such as the Indian
Rajya Sabha)
- Membership determined only by heredity (91 members of the House
of Lords)
In the UK, the lower house is the de facto legislative body, while
the upper house practices restraint in exercising its
constitutional powers and serves as a consultative body. In other
Westminster countries, however, the upper house can sometimes
exercise considerable power.
Some Westminster-derived parliaments are
unicameral for two reasons:
Australia is, in many respects, a unique hybrid with influences
from the
United States
Constitution as well as from the traditions and conventions of
the Westminster system. Australia is exceptional because the
government faces a fully elected upper house, the Senate, which
must be willing to pass its budgets. Although government is formed
in the lower house, the House of Representatives, the support of
the Senate is necessary in order to govern. The Senate maintains
the ability similar to that held by the British House of Lords,
prior to the enactment of the
Parliament Act 1911, to block supply
against the government of the day. A government that is unable to
obtain supply can be dismissed by the
Governor-General: however,
this is generally considered a last resort and is a highly
controversial decision to take, given the conflict between the
traditional concept of confidence as derived from the lower house
and the ability of the Senate to block supply. Many political
scientists have held that the
Australian system of government was
consciously devised as a blend or hybrid of the Westminster and the
United States
systems of government, especially since the Australian Senate
is a powerful upper house like the U.S. Senate; this notion is
expressed in the nickname "the Washminster mutation" . The ability
of upper houses to block supply also features in the
parliaments
of most Australian states.
Criticisms
The office of a Westminster prime minister is often criticised for
being too powerful , as he or she effectively determines when
"consensus" is reached in cabinet, cabinet members do not have much
independence to actively disagree with government policy, even for
productive reasons. A cabinet member may be forced to resign simply
for opposing one aspect of a government's agenda, even though they
agreed with the majority of other proposals. Westminster cabinets
also have a tendency to be very large. As cabinet is the chief
organ of power and influence in the government, members of
parliament may actively lobby for a position in cabinet once their
party is elected to power. The Prime Minister, who is also party
leader, will have an active interest in promoting as many these
members from his own party as possible.
Westminster governments usually do not have a very strong tradition
of
separation of powers, in
practice. Though the head of state, be it governor-general,
monarch, or president, will have nominal powers to "check" those of
the prime minister, in practice these individuals are usually
regarded as little more than
figureheads
who are not expected to actively intervene in day-to-day politics.
It must be noted, however, that Prime ministers under any
Westminster system do not have ample freedom to appoint a large
variety of individuals, such as judges, cabinet ministers, and
other senior bureaucrats.
But it must also be remembered that prime ministers can usually do
only as much as public opinion and the balance of party membership
of parliament will let them do. And it is relatively rare that a
prime minister will have a big enough majority to cancel opposition
from smaller parties; in practice, government in most parliamentary
systems is made up of coalitions, and prime ministers must keep the
coalitions happy.
The threat posed by non-confidence votes is often used to justify
extremely well-disciplined legislative parties in Westminster
systems. In order to ensure the government always has the
confidence of the majority of the house, the political culture of
Westminster nations often makes it highly unusual for a legislator
to vote against their party. Critics argue this in turn undermines
the freedom and importance of
Members of Parliament (MPs) in
day-to-day legislating, making cabinet the only organ of government
where individual legislators can aspire to influence the decisions
of the government.
Most senior policy will be made at the cabinet level, regardless of
what individual MPs may or may not decide in committee, thus
reducing the strength of committees. Their greatest power is often
the ability to force a government to reveal certain pieces of
information.
Ceremonies
The Westminster system has a very distinct appearance when
functioning, with many British customs incorporated into day-to-day
government function. A Westminster-style parliament is usually a
long, rectangular room, with two rows of seats and desks on either
side. The chairs are positioned so that the two rows are facing
each other. Traditionally, the opposition parties will sit in one
row of seats, and the government party will sit in the other. Of
course, sometimes a
majority
government is so large that it must use the "opposition" seats
as well. In the lower house at Westminster (the House of Commons)
there are lines on the floor in front of the government and
opposition benches that members may cross only when exiting the
chamber. It is often rumoured that the distance between the lines
is that of the length of two swords although no documentary
evidence exists to support this and in fact, weapons have never
been allowed in the Palace of Westminster at any time.
At one end of the room sits a large chair, for the
Speaker of the
House. The speaker usually wears a black robe, and in many
countries, a
wig. Robed parliamentary
clerk often sit at narrow tables
between the two rows of seats, as well.
Other ceremonies sometimes associated with the Westminster system
include an annual
Speech from the
Throne (or equivalent) in which the Head of State gives a
special address (written by the government) to parliament about
what kind of policies to expect in the coming year, and lengthy
State Opening of
Parliament ceremonies that often involve the presentation of a
large
ceremonial mace.
Current countries
The Sansad Bhavan Parliament building
in Delhi, India
Parliament House of Pakistan
The Parliament building in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
Countries that use variations on the theme of the Westminster
system include the following:
- * Bermuda
Former countries
- The Union of South Africa
between 1910 and 1961, and the Republic of South
Africa between 1961 and 1984. The 1983 constitution abolished
the Westminster system in South Africa.
- Newfoundland between
1907 and 1949 when Newfoundland joined Canadian Confederation.
- Rhodesia between 1965
and 1979, and Zimbabwe
between 1980
and 1987. The 1987 constitution abolished the Westminster
system.
- Nigeria
following
the end of British colonial rule in 1960, which resulted in the
appointment of a Governor-General and then a President, Nnamdi Azikiwe. The system ended after
Nigeria became a republic in 1963.
- Ceylon
between 1948
and 1972, and Sri
Lanka
from 1972 until 1978 when the constitution was
remodelled into a presidential system.
- Burma
following
independence in 1948 until the 1962 military coup
d'état.
- Fiji
between 1970
and 1987.
- Guyana
between 1966
and 1970. Presidential system established in 1980.
- Kenya
between 1963
and 1964.
See also
Notes
- "The English Constitution" see Bibliography.
- Thompson, Elaine. “The 'Washminster' Mutation,” in Responsible
Government in Australia, eds. P. Weller and D. Jaensch, Drummond,
Richmond, 1980
Bibliography
- The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot, 1876. ISBN
0-521-46535-4, ISBN 0-521-46942-2.
- British Cabinet Government, Simon James, Pub
Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0-415-17977-7.
- Prime Minister & Cabinet Government, Neil
MacNaughton, 1999. ISBN 0-340-74759-5.
External links
Top topics
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search