System of Westminster - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

The system of Westminster is a democratic system of government based on that existing with the the United Kingdom, and draws its name from the Palate of Westminster, the seat of the Parlement of the United Kingdom. This system defines a series of rules intended to make function a system of government where the principal capacity is held by the legislative power (Parliamentary Régime). It is used, or was used, in the majority of the nations members or in the past members of the the Commonwealth, to begin with the Canadian Provinces in the middle of the 19th century. It is also used in Australia, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malta. There exist other parliamentary systems, for example those of Germany or Italy, whose procedures differ considerably from the system of Westminster.

Key characteristics

The important components of the system of Westminster include:

a Head of State, different from the chief of the government, which is theoretically holder of the executive power and many " capacities of Réserve" but whose real role is practically purely protocolar. It is the case for example of the British Sovereign, of the President of India, the Governor-General of Australia or the Lieutenant-Governor of the Canadian province of Ontario.
a Head of government called according to the countries: Prime Minister, " precede minister" , " premier" or " first minister" , named officially by the Head of the State and which is in fact practically always the chief of the majority party of the Lower House.
a Executive power, usually composed members of the Parliament and of which most important, the ministers form a Cabinet: the Cabinet of the Ministers whereas the others are Secretaries of State; the members of the government are chosen by the Prime Minister.
opposition parties with the recognized roles (" Shadow cabinet " or Shadow cabinet ).
a Parliament elected with a system with two rooms in which at least one (the Lower House) of the two rooms is elected and the different one (the Upper House) named or elected;
the possibility for the Lower House of the Parliament of causing the fall of a government while “cutting the vivres to him” (in voter not the budget), as a voter a Motion of censure or voter not the confidence. The system of Westminster allows the fall of a government and the formation again which will be able either to have the majority or to dispatch the go concern while waiting for new anticipated elections;
the possibility of dissolving the Parliament, and of organizing elections constantly.
a parliamentary privilege which makes that any member of Parliament can discuss freely any subject of his choice without fear of being able to be continued for his remarks.
of the reports of the parliamentary discussions but with the possibility of not publishing certain remarks.

The majority of the procedures of the system of Westminster find their origin in conventions, practices and precedents of the Parlement of the United Kingdom, and which belong to what is known like the British Constitution. With the difference of the United Kingdom, the majority of the country using the system of Westminster codified the system in a written constitution. However, conventions, practices and precedents continue to play a big role in these countries, insofar as the constitutions do not detail important elements of procedure: for example, of old constitutions using the system of Westminster, like the Canadian constitution or the Australian constitution, does not even specify the existence of the Cabinet and of the head of government (Prime Minister titrates it) because the existence of these loads and their role evolved/moved apart from the constitutional framework of origin.

Operation

Within the framework of the system of Westminster, the members of the Parliament are elected by the Vote for all. The chief of the government is usually chosen and invited to form a government by the Head of the State or the representative of the Head of the State (i.e. the General governor); he is thus not elected by the Parliament. There are notable exceptions to the preceding case in the Irish Republic, where the President is elected by the direct suffrage, and where the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) is named by the Lower House, the Dail Eireann, it before even its designation by the president.

Because of the mandate and potentially important constitutional capacities of the Irish president, some specialists seem to believe that the Irish constitution is as close to a system of semi-presidential government as it is not to it system of Westminster. In the same way, within the framework of the constitutions of certain Member States of the Commonwealth, a president or a Governor-general can have important reserved capacities. The Australian constitutional Crise of 1975 in is an example: the Governor-general dismissed the Prime Minister, who however held a majority with the Australian Chambre of the Representatives. Because of constitutional differences, the formal capacities of the presidents and Governor-generals largely vary from one country to another. However, insofar as the Governor-generals are not directly elected, they miss the legitimacy which an election confers, such as that held by the Irish president. This is why the Governor-generals seldom make unilateral decisions or make a use potentially discussed of their capacities, under penalty of risking the popular disapproval.

The chief of the government, usually called Prime Minister, must be able (A) to control a majority within the Lower House and (b) to make sure that no absolute majority can be constituted against him. If the Parliament votes a motion of censure, and that the government fails to make vote a major law like the budget of the state, says it government must resign so that new can be made up. It can however carry out a dissolution so that new elections can be held allowing or not the confirmation of its majority.

In addition to one majority to the Lower House or Room of the Representatives, Australian the Prime Minister who wishes to make vote the budget must also obtain the agreement of the Senate. It is a practical matter which makes it possible the government to control, but the support of the Senate is not necessary at all to form the government; this one is formed in the Lower House only. Many political observers supported that the system of Australian government had been conceived intentionally like an hybrid of the system of Westminster and system of government of the United States, especially if one considers that the Australian Senate is a very powerful Upper House. This concept is expressed in the nickname “system of Washminster”. The Australian Senate preserves capacities similar to those which has the Senat of the United States or the House of Lords before 1911, for example “to however cut the vivres” to a party having one majority with the Room of the Representatives.

Although a Dissolution of the Parliament and the call to be held of new elections are formally field of the Head of the State, this one acts only in accordance with the wishes of the chief of the government.

In exceptional circumstances, the Head of the State can is to refuse a request for dissolution, as at the time of the business “King-Byng” or to dismiss the government, as at the time of the Australian crisis of 1975. The “principles of Lascelles” were an attempt to create a rule to be applied in such cases, but they were never tested in practice.

Government of Cabinet

In its book “Constitution English” published in 1876, Walter Bagehot underlined division of constitution into two elements distinct, Worthy (the symbolic system part) and Effective (the way whose things function and are made), and called Effective “the Government of Cabinet”. Although there was, since then, of many work stressing the various aspects from “the Effective one”, none seriously questioned the postulate of Bagehot according to which a division exists in the system of Westminster.

The members of the Cabinet are perceived like collectively responsible for the government policy. All decision makings of the Cabinet are done by consensus; a vote cannot take place at a meeting of the Cabinet. All the members of the government, whom they have an important wallet and are ministers or who they are associated ministers, must support the policy of the government publicly, whatever their personal opinions. When a cabinet reshuffle is imminent, one takes much time in discussions in the media and political discourses to know which will be évincé or incorporated in the Cabinet by the Prime Minister. Indeed, the nomination of the ministers to the Cabinet (or threatens it to be returned about it) is the constitutional capacity most powerful available to the Prime Minister to ensure a political control of the government in the system of Westminster.

The idea that the ministers are responsible for the actions of their subordinates is bound, at least in theory, with the government of Cabinet. The fact that the acts of employees of its ministry, on which it does not have any direct control, are errors is regarded more as a cause of resignation. One of the major capacities of the Prime Minister within the framework of the system of Westminster east to play a part of referee when a minister can be held for person in charge of the actions of his ministry.

The official opposition and other major political parties not forming part of the government, will copy the governmental organization with their clean Shadow cabinet composed Phantom Ministers.

Consequences

The system of Westminster tends to have parties extremely disciplined in which it is very unusual for an elected official to vote against his party, and which the vote of a Motion of censure is very rare. Same manner, the system of Westminster produced of the strong cabinets whose members are politicians profiting from an independent base of support. Conversely, the parliamentary commissions are rather weak, even if they preserve the capacity to force a government to reveal certain information.

Ceremonial

The system of Westminster results in a characteristic presentation, many British habits being built-in its daily operation.

A Parliament of the type “Westminster” is usually located in a long rectangular part, with two lines of seats and offices of each with dimensions. The seats are placed in such a way that the two lines are face to face. The objective of this provision is to create a visual representation of the antagonistic nature of a parliamentary assembly. Traditionally, the opposition parties will be placed on a side of seats, and the majority on the other. Of course, it can happen that the members of the majority are so numerous that they must also use the seats of “the opposition”. On the ground of the Lower House to the Palate of Westminster (the House of Commons) are drawn lines vis-a-vis the steps of the majority and the opposition, that their members can cross only when they leave the room. The distance between these two lines is length of two swords. With one of the ends of the part a large seat intended for the President of the Room (" is; Announcer off the House"). The president wears usually a black dress, and in many countries, a wig.

Among the cérémoniaux ones associated with the system of Westminster are the Speech from the throne (or an equivalent) during which the Head of the State makes an address (written by the government) in connection with the government actions planned for the year to come, and the Opening ceremony of the Parliament.

Some countries using the system of Westminster

See too

Random links:

Beli ap Rhun | Ormancey | Silvio Spann | Flip Wilson | Popularity of bonds