Westminster system
The Westminster system, or Westminster model, is a type of parliamentary government modelled on that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Key aspects of the system include an executive branch made up of members of the legislature which is responsible to the legislature; the presence of parliamentary opposition parties; and a ceremonial head of state who is separate from the head of government. The term derives from the Palace of Westminster, the seat of the British parliament. The Westminster system can be contrasted with the presidential system, which originated in the United States, and with the semi-presidential system based on the government of France.
The Westminster system is used, or was once used, in the national and subnational legislatures of most former colonies of the British Empire upon gaining self-government, beginning with the Province of Canada in 1848. However, many former colonies have since adopted other forms of government.
Characteristics
The Westminster system of government may include some of the following features:- A sovereign or head of state who functions as the nominal or legal and constitutional holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing ceremonial functions. Examples include King Charles III, the governors-general in the Commonwealth realms, or the presidents of many countries, and state or provincial governors in federal systems. Exceptions to this are Ireland and Israel, whose presidents are both de jure and de facto ceremonial, and the latter possesses no reserve powers whatsoever.
- A head of government, known as the prime minister, premier, chief minister or first minister. While the head of state appoints the head of government, constitutional convention suggests that a majority of elected members of parliament must support the person appointed. If more than half of elected parliamentarians belong to the same political party, then the parliamentary leader of that party typically is appointed.
- An executive branch led by the head of government usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a cabinet adhering to the principle of cabinet collective responsibility; such members wield authority on behalf of the nominal or theoretical executive.
- An independent, non-partisan civil service that advises on, and implements, decisions of the elected government. Civil servants hold permanent appointments and can expect merit-based selection processes and continuity of employment when governments change.
- A parliamentary opposition with an official leader of the opposition, which generally takes on an adversarial role, presenting arguments against the government's policies. In certain countries, the leader of the opposition is expected to be ready to form a government if the office of head of government becomes vacant.
- A legislature, often bicameral, with at least one elected house — although unicameral systems also exist. Traditionally, the lower house is elected using first-past-the-post from single-member districts, which is still more common, although some use a system of proportional representation, parallel voting, or preferential voting.
- A lower house of parliament with the ability to dismiss a government by "withholding supply", passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.
- A parliament that can be dissolved, allowing snap elections to be called at any time.
- Parliamentary privilege, which allows the legislature to discuss any issue it deems 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.
- The ability of courts to address silence or ambiguity in the statutory law through the development of common law. Another parallel system of legal principles also exists known as equity. Exceptions to this include India, Quebec in Canada, and Scotland in the UK, among other countries who mix common law with other legal systems.
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 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. As an illustrative example, in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and replaced him with opposition leader Malcolm Fraser.
Summary of the typical structure of the Westminster model
| Type | Bicameral | Elected or appointed upper house to approve and/or scrutinise laws.
|
| Type | Bicameral | Elected lower house to represent the people and initiate legislation. |
| Leadership | Head of state | Monarch or ceremonial president. |
| Leadership | Head of government | Usually the leader of the largest party in the lower house.
|
| Leadership | Presiding officers of legislative chambers | Speaker of the upper house |
| Leadership | Presiding officers of legislative chambers | Speaker of the lower house |
| General | Government | Formed by the largest party/coalition in the lower house, and led by the head of government.
|
| General | Opposition | Led by the leader of the opposition. A shadow cabinet is formed out of the elected members of the largest party or coalition in the legislature not in government, chosen by the party leader. |
| General | Public service | Politically independent and available to the people of the state, that will work for various government organisations. |
| General | Armed forces | Defensive organisation of the state/country. |
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 is nominally exercised in their 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 motion 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 de jure exercised by the cabinet as a whole, along with more junior ministers, however, in effect, the head of government dominates the executive as the head of government is ultimately the person from whom the head of state will take advice on the exercise of executive power, including the appointment and dismissal of cabinet members. This results in the situation where individual cabinet members in effect serve at the pleasure of the prime minister. Thus the cabinet is strongly subordinate to the prime minister as they can be replaced at any time, or can be moved to a different portfolio in a cabinet reshuffle for "underperforming".
In the United Kingdom, the sovereign theoretically holds executive authority, even though the prime minister 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 and the Council of Ministers. In Israel, however, executive power is vested de jure and de facto in the cabinet and the president is de jure and de facto a ceremonial figurehead.
As an example, the prime minister and cabinet 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. However, the sovereign, in modern times, has virtually always followed the advice of their prime minister without their own agency. This owes to the fact that the British sovereign is a constitutional monarch. The monarch abides by the advice of their ministers, except when executing reserve powers in times of crisis. The sovereign's power to appoint and dismiss governments, appoint cabinet ministers to serve in the government, appoint diplomats, declare war, and to sign treaties is known as the royal prerogative, which in modern times is exercised by the sovereign solely on the advice of the Prime Minister.
This custom also occurs in other countries are regions around the world using the Westminster System, as a legacy of British colonial rule. In Commonwealth realms such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the day-to-day functions that would be exercised by the sovereign personally in the United Kingdom are instead exercised by the governor-general. In such nations, the prime minister is obligated to formally seek permission from the governor-general when implementing executive decisions, in a manner similar to the British system.
An analogous scenario also exists in republics in the Commonwealth of Nations, such as India or Trinidad and Tobago, where there is a president who functions similarly to a governor-general.
An unusual case lies in Israel and Japan, where the respective prime ministers have the full legal power to implement executive decisions, and presidential or imperial approval is not required; the prime ministers of these nations are fully the de jure source of executive authority, and not the head of state.
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 their 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 English fluently. Over time, further arrangements continued to allow the execution of executive authority on the sovereign's behalf and more and more de facto power ended up lying in the Prime Minister's hands. Such a concept was reinforced in The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot, who distinguished between the separate "dignified" and "efficient" functions of government. The sovereign should be a focal point for the nation, while the PM and cabinet actually undertook executive decisions.