Westminster Model of Democracy

8 INTRODUCTION on a wide array of indicators of democratic quality and that they also have better records with regard to governing effectiveness, although the differences in this respect are not as large. Chapter 17 concludes with a look at the policy implications of the book's findings for democratizing and newly democratic countries. CHAPTER 2 THE WESTMINSTER MODEL OF DEMOCRACY n this book I use the term Westminster model interchange ably with majoritarian model to refer to a general model of Idemocracy. It may also be used more narrowly to denote the main characteristics of British parliamentary and governmental institutions (G. Wilson 1994; Mahler 1997)-the Parliament of the United Kingdom meets in the Palace of Westminster in Lon don. The British version of the Westminster model is both the original and the best-known example of this model. It is also widely admired. Richard Rose (1974, 131) points out that, "with confidence born of continental isolation, Americans have come to assume that their institutions-the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court-are the prototype of what should be adopted elsewhere." But American political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, have tended to hold the British system of government in at least equally high esteem (Kavanagh 1974). One famous political scientist who fervently admired the West minster model was President Woodrow Wilson. In his early writ ings he went so far as to urge the abolition of presidential govern ment and the adoption of British-style parliamentary government 9 WESTMINSTER MODEL OF DEMOCRACY 11 10 WESTMINSTER MODEL OF DEMOCRACY in the United States. Such views have also been held by many majority rule: it wields vast amounts of political power to rule as other non-British observers of British politics, and many features the representative of and in the interest of a majority that is not of the Westminster model have been exported to other countries: of overwhelming proportions. A large minority is excluded from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Britain's former col power and condemned to the role of opposition. onies in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean when they became inde Especially since 1945, there have been few exceptions to the pendent. Wilson (1884, 33) referred to parliamentary government in British norm of one-party majority cabinets. David Butler (1978, accordance with the Westminster model as "the world's fashion." 112) writes that "clear-cut single-party government has been The ten interrelated elements of the Westminster or majoritar much less prevalent than many would suppose," but most of the ian model are illustrated by features of three democracies that deviations from the norm-coalitions of two or more parties or closely approximate this model and can be regarded as the majori minority cabinets-occurred from 1918 to 1945. The only in tarian prototypes: the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Barba stances of minority cabinets in the postwar period were two mi dos. Britain, where the Westminster model originated, is clearly nority Labour cabinets in the 1970s. In the parliamentary elec the first and most obvious example to use. In many respects, how tion of February 1974, the Labour party won a plurality but not a ever, New Zealand is an even better example-at least until its majority of the seats and formed a minority government depen sharp turn away from majoritarianism in October 1996. The third dent on all other parties not uniting to defeat it. New elections example-Barbados-is also an almost perfect prototype of the were held that October and Labour won an outright, albeit narrow, Westminster model, although only as far as the first (executives majority of the seats; but this majority was eroded by defections parties) dimension ofthe majoritarian-consensus contrast is con and by-election defeats, and the Labour cabinet again became a cerned. In the following discussion of the ten majoritarian char minority cabinet in 1976. It regained a temporary legislative ma acteristics in the three countries, I emphasize not only the!r jority in 1977 as a result ofthe pact it negotiated with the thirteen conformity with the general model but also occasional devia Liberals in the House of Commons: the Liberals agreed to support tions from the model, as well as various other qualifications that the cabinet in exchange for consultation on legislative proposals need to be made. before their submission to Parliament. No Liberals entered the cabinet, however, and the cabinet therefore continued as ami THE WESTMINSTER MODEL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM nority instead of a true coalition cabinet. The so-called Lab-Lib 1. Concentration of executive power in one-party and bare pact lasted until 1978, and in 1979 Labour Prime Minister James majority cabinets. The most powerful organ of British govern Callaghan's minority cabinet was brought down by a vote of no ment is the cabinet. It is normally composed of members of the confidence in the House of Commons. party that has the majority of seats in the House of Commons, The only instance of a coalition cabinet in the postwar period and the minority is not included. Coalition cabinets are rare. Be is the government formed after the May 2010 election, which, as cause in the British two-party system the two principal parties in February 1974, did not produce a clear winner. The incum are of approximately equal strength, the party that wins the elec bent Labour government was defeated, but the Conservatives tions usually represents no more than a narrow majority, and the won only a plurality instead of a majority of the seats. In order to minority is relatively large. Hence the British one-party and bare have majority support in the House of Commons, they formed a majority cabinet is the perfect embodiment of the principle of coalition cabinet with the small Liberal Democratic party. Conser- 12 WESTMINSTER MODEL OF DEMOCRACY WESTMINSTER MODEL OF DEMOCRACY 13 vative leader David Cameron became prime minister and Liberal tend to be much less dominant (Peters 1997). Because of the Democratic leader Nick Clegg deputy prime minister. However, concentration of power in a dominant cabinet, former cabinet coalition and minority cabinets are likely to remain the excep minister Lord Hailsham (1978, 127) has called the British system tion. They tend to be formed only when an election produces of government an "elective dictatorship."1 what in Britain is called a "hung parliament" without a majority 3. Two-party system. British politics is dominated by two large winner-a very unusual election outcome. parties: the Conservative party and the Labour party. Other parties 2. Cabinet dominance. The United Kingdom has a parliamen also contest elections and win seats in the House of Commons tary system of government, which means that the cabinet is de in particular the Liberals and, after their merger with the Social pendent on the confidence of Parliament. In theory, because the Democratic party in the late 1980s, the Liberal Democrats (situ House of Commons can vote a cabinet out of office, it "controls" ated in the political center, between Labour on the left and the Con the cabinet. In reality, the relationship is reversed. Because the servatives on the right)-but they are not large enough to be over cabinet is composed of the leaders of a cohesive majority party in all victors. Minor parties, like the Scottish National party, the the House of Commons, it is normally backed by the majority in Welsh nationalists, and several Northern Ireland parties, never the House of Commons, and it can confidently count on staying manage to win more than a handful of votes and seats. The bulk in office and getting its legislative proposals approved. The cabi of the seats are captured by the two major parties, and they form net is clearly dominant vis-a-vis Parliament. the cabinets: the Labour party from 1945 to 1951, 1964 to 1970, Because strong cabinet leadership depends on majority sup 1974 to 1979, and 1997 to 2010, and the Conservatives from 1951 port in the House of Commons and on the cohesiveness of the to 1964, 1970 to 1974, and in the long stretch from 1979 to 1997. majority party, cabinets lose some of their predominant position The hegemony of these two parties was especially pronounced when either or both of these conditions are absent. Especiallv between 1950 and 1970: jointly they never won less than 87.5 during the periods of minority government in the 1970s, there percent of the votes and 98 percent of the seats in the House of was a significant increase in the frequency of parliamentary de Commons in the seven elections held in this period. feats of important cabinet proposals. This even caused a change The interwar years were a transitional period during which in the traditional view that cabinets must resign or dissolve the House of Commons and call for new elections if they suffer a 1. In presidential systems of government, in which the presidential executive cannot normally be removed by the legislature (except by im defeat on either a parliamentary vote of no confidence or a major peachment), the same variation in the degree of executive dominance can bill of central importance to the cabinet. The new unwritten rule occur, depending on exactly how governmental powers are separated. In is that only an explicit vote of no confidence necessitates resigna the United States, president and Congress can be said to be in a rough bal tion or new elections. The normalcy of cabinet dominance was ance of power, but presidents in France and in some of the Latin American largely restored in the 1980s under the strong leadership of Con countries are considerably more powerful.

Load more