Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Business Industries Finance Tax

Home > Westminster System


First Prev [ 1 2 ] Next Last

The Westminster System is a democratic system of government modelled after that of the United Kingdom system of government and used in Westminster, the seat of government, hence its name. It is used in a number of Commonwealth nations such as Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Jamaica, New Zealand and India and in non-Commonwealth states like Ireland. It is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. Although Westminster systems are parliamentary systems, there are parliamentary governments, such as Germany and Italy, whose legislative procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.

Aspects of the Westminster system include:

Most of the procedures of a Westminster system, though not in Ireland, are typically defined by convention, practice and precedent along with, or rather than, codification through a written constitution. Many older constitutions using the Westminster system may not even mention the existence of a head of government or Prime Minister, with the office's existence and role evolving outside the primary constitutional text.

1 Operation

In a Westminster system, the members of parliament are elected by popular vote. The head of government is usually chosen by being invited to form a government by the head of state or representative of the head of state (ie, governor-general in some Commonwealth states), not by parliamentary vote. (See Kiss 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 clear and significant reserve powers. One example is the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Because of constititional differences, the formal powers of presidents and Governors-General vary greatly from one country to another. However, as Governor-Generals are not directly elected, they lack the popular mandate held, for example, by an Irish president. Because of this, Governor-Generals rarely risk the public disapproval which would result from them making unilateral and/or controversial uses of their powers.

The head of government, usually called the Prime Minister, must be able either (a) to control a majority of seats within the lower house, (b) ensure the existence of no absolute majority against them. If the parliament passes a resolution of no confidence or if the government fails to pass a major 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 public elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny their mandate.

Many political scientists have argued that the Australian system of government was consciously devised as a blend of the Westminster and United States systems, especially since the Australian Senate is a very powerful upper house. Hence the nickname "Washminster system". One implication is that although the Australian Senate is fully-elected, it maintains similar powers to those held by the British House of Lords, prior to 1911, to block supply to a government with a majority in the lower house.

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 King-Byng Affair, or dismiss the government, as in the Australian constitutional 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.





Non User