Evolving Dynamics of the Westminster Model

How has the Westminster Model defined the British state? Is it still useful for explaining the operation of British Government?

The term ‘Westminster model’ comes from the seat of the Parliament, which is the Palace of Westminster. However, there is a very specific meaning attached to the term, which is not related to the site of the Parliament, but the form of government that the term entails. One of the aspects of this essay is the discussion on this form of the government and how it has defined the British state. The Westminster model of government is an integral part of the British state and polity. This essay discusses how the Westminster Model defined the British state and whether it is still useful for explaining the operation of the British government.

The Westminster model of government is a parliamentary form of government in which the common principles are predominantly related to representations of groups and citizens and the responsibilities and the roles of the different orders of the government (Seidle & Docherty, 2003). The model is based on two principles: Parliament allows the government to operate and also serves “as a watchdog” over the actions of the government (Seidle & Docherty, 2003, p. 5). The key characteristics of the Westminster form of government include: parliamentary sovereignty; accountability through free and fair elections; control of executive by the majority party; cabinet government; dominant central government; ministerial responsibility; and a non-political civil service (Marsh, et al., 2001, p. 6). This system contrasts with countries that have Presidential democracies like the United States and semi-Presidential democracies like France. In the United States for example, the civil servants are also elected to their offices, while in the UK, the civil service is non-political and aids the elected ministers in their departments.

The Westminster model of government is a part of conventions of the British constitutional law. This model of government has evolved for the purpose of regulating the relationship between the institutions of state, including the office of Prime Minister, Parliament, Monarch, and the government. The Westminster model of government is based on the premise that the ministers of the government must have a seat in Parliament (Martin, 2013). This means that all those who are ministers in the government must also be members of the Parliament. For certain individuals, like the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, membership of the House of Commons is mandatory in order for them to be appointed to the office (Martin, 2013). In other words, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can only be appointed from those members of Parliament who have been elected to the House of Commons. is required to have seats in the House of Commons. The Westminster model of government is premised on the principle that the executive has responsibility and accountability to the legislature, which is ensured by the ministers also being members of the Parliament (Martin, 2013).

The Westminster form of government suggests that the institutions and processes of the British politics are underpinned by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The system itself operates on the basis of two characteristics: (a) a first-past-the-post electoral system; this gives one party a majority, and also holds the executive responsible for its actions through periodic elections; and (b) tight party discipline, which means that the members of the Parliament follow the whip; this gives a strong cabinet government and the dominance of the executive over the legislature (Marsh, et al., 2001). The Parliament formally includes the legislature, the executive and the Crown and for centuries, the Westminster form of government has evolved as powers between the three parts of the Parliament have been given up by one part to the other; this has happened largely with the Crown gradually giving up many of its powers to the House of Commons (Seidle & Docherty, 2003). The Bill of Rights 1689 firmly established the superiority of the Parliament in law. With the enacting of the Reform Act 1832, led to the incorporation of the principle of responsible government, with the executive being a part of the Parliament and also being accountable to the Parliament (Seidle & Docherty, 2003). While the Westminster system firmly established a system of government which created a strong cabinet and central government and a Parliament that was supreme in law, many of these features of the Westminster model have eroded over time. For example, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty came to be diluted after the UK became a member of the European Union and the system of a strong central government also eroded with time. This is explained below.

The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty an established and well-entrenched convention within the Westminster model of government (Oliver & Drewry, 1998). This doctrine has been diluted over the period of time, with the traditional precepts of the doctrine being diluted due to the application of the European law to the UK (Slapper & Kelly, 2009). The traditional precepts of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that the Parliament’s powers to legislate are unlimited and unrestricted and outside the scope of judicial review. Moreover, Parliament cannot bind its successors by its laws (Slapper & Kelly, 2009). After the UK became a member of the European Union, it enacted the European Communities Act 1972, which gave primacy to the laws made by the European Union and also restricted future parliaments from making laws contrary to European Union law (Turpin & Tomkins, 2007). Moreover, judicial review under the principle of compatibility between the statutory law and the European Union law has been allowed under the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (Fenwick, 2007). Thus, clearly the Westminster model has been diluted with respect to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

The UK’s political system was for a long time an example of unitary and centralized government. Central government, which was once a key actor in the making of public policy, does not have a similar say in the making of public policy (Richards & Smith, 2002). The impact of membership of the European Union plays a role in the eroding of the traditional role of the central government under the Westminster style of government (Richards & Smith, 2002). The other reason for the erosion of the role of central government is devolution under the Blair Labour government (Richards & Smith, 2002). Devolution in the recent past has allowed some decentralisation of the powers that were once controlled by the executive (Baldini, et al., 2018). Devolution has led to decentralisation within the Westminster model of government, not just in England, but other constituents of the UK. Devolution has been necessitated to a great part to the fact that operations of the British government have increased manifold over the period of time. Harling (2001) argues that the functions of the state have actually broadened dramatically over the last three centuries. While in 1870s, the functions of the British government were mostly concerned with the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, and the provision of basic amenities, in the 21st century, the British government assumes a wide range of functions that extend to the provision of education, health care, social services, retirement benefits, and unemployment insurance (Harling, 2001). Constitutional reforms after 1997 have seen much of this devolution (House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, 2016). In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament was established in November 1998 and all matters except those specifically reserved to the UK Parliament were devolved to Edinburgh (House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, 2016). With respect to Wales, the 1997 referendum allowed devolution to Wales (National Assembly for Wales External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, 2018). This led to the establishment of a 60-member National Assembly in 1998 and then more devolution happened under Government of Wales Act 2006, which created a separate legislature for Wales and a separate executive (National Assembly for Wales External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, 2018). The current devolution arrangements in the UK see Scotland with a government and a directly elected parliament, Wales with a government and a directly elected assembly, Northern Ireland with a power sharing executive with England and a directly elected assembly. This indicates that the Westminster model may no longer be apt for explaining the operations of the government in the UK.

The changes that have occurred in the Westminster system may be understood better against the background of the problems or gaps in the system. Over a period of time, Westminster system has come to be criticised by some scholars as well who view the system as despotic and dictatorial as the Prime Minister and strong cabinet exercise dominance over the legislature. In this regard, Rhodes has said that the Westminster system leads to a view of politics as a zero-sum game in which the Prime Minister dominates ministers of the cabinet, the ministers dominate the civil servants, and the government and the civil servants dominate the local government (Rhodes, 1981). This may be a reason why some countries where Westminster model has also had influence on, such as, New Zealand, Canada and Australia have moved away from it (Seidle & Docherty, 2003). The British Parliament has been called the ‘mother of all Parliamentary governments’ for its far reaching influence (Seidle & Docherty, 2003, p. 3). However, it is also a fact that many of the countries that follow the parliamentary form of government like the UK have moved away from the Westminster form of parliament over a period of time, and have been inspired by countries like Germany to inform the changes in their model of parliaments (Seidle & Docherty, 2003). For instance, South Africa made some changes in the second chamber based on the German model and New Zealand made some changes in the electoral system based on the German model (Seidle & Docherty, 2003, p. 4). These changes point at the identification of gaps in the Westminster system and the consequent move away from the Westminster system.

Within the government, the Prime Minister is elected on the basis that he is the leader of the party that commands a clear majority in the House of Commons. The British Westminster system has been defined as an “elected dictatorship” by Lord Hailsham on this ground only that the entire government is rub by the Prime Minister who is also able to make the other members of the party and government toe the line given by the Prime Minister (Baldini, et al., 2018). Even more recent scholarship on the Westminster system, which may not call the Westminster system as a dictatorship, does however accept that the executive dominates the legislature and the wider polity (Baldini, et al., 2018). One of the most important criticisms of the Westminster model is that it is said to be a system in which the executive is dominant and the power is hoarded in favour of the executive. The model is based on the government being formed by the single-party that is ‘first-past-the-post electoral system’, which means that the government itself is formed by the party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons through majoritarian effects by which the electoral system converts a majority of votes into an absolute majority of seats. For some, this is an advantage of the Westminster model because it gives stable and responsible party government; this is especially true in the postwar period when many European countries were struggling to rebuild democracy while Britain had a stable government as per an extensive report prepared by the American Political Science Review (1950). However, this is not considered to be the most appropriate form of governance anymore, not is it considered to be a form that can explain the actual operations of the UK government at this time (Rhodes, 1981; Baldini, et al., 2018).

To conclude this essay, it may be said that while the Westminster form of government has been an integral part of the UK polity since centuries, there have been significant changes in the features of the Westminster model, particularly in the dilution of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the dilution of the central government purview through devolution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Westminster model of government aptly explains the operations of the British government at this point. To some extent, this is required because there were some gaps in the Westminster model. Not only UK, but other countries who followed Westminster model have moved away from it.

Bibliography

American Political Science Review, 1950. Report of the Committee on Political Parties (supplement to American Political Science Review, September, 1950), Washington: American Political Science Review.

Baldini, G., Bressanelli, E. & Massetti, E., 2018. Who is in control? Brexit and the Westminster Model. The Political Quarterly .

Fenwick, H., 2007. Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Oxon: Routledge.

Harling, P., 2001. The Modern British Sate: An Historical Introduction. London: Polity.

House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, 2016. The Union and Devolution, London: House of Lords.

Marsh, D., Richards, D. & Smith, M. J., 2001. Changing Patterns of Governance: Reinventing Whitehall. s.l.:Palgrave.

Martin, J., 2013. The English Legal System. London: Hachette.

National Assembly for Wales External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, 2018. How is the Welsh Government preparing for Brexit?, Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee.

Oliver, D. & Drewry, G., 1998. The Law and Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rhodes, R., 1981. Control and Power in Central-Local Government Relations. Farnborough: Gower.

Richards, D. & Smith, M. J., 2002. Governance and Public Policy in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seidle, F. L. & Docherty, D. C., 2003. In: F. L. Seidle & D. C. Docherty, eds. Reforming parliamentary democracy. Introduction: McGill-Queen's University Press, pp. 3-20.

Slapper, G. & Kelly, D., 2009. The English Legal System. Oxon: Routledge.

Turpin, C. & Tomkins, A., 2007. British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.