Defining the Westminster Model

Defining the Westminster Model is not easy. There is ‘no rigid and idealised Westminster Model’; its ‘malleable nature’, ‘ambiguous tenets’, ‘ever-present exceptions’ and ‘numerous mutations’ make attempts to pin it down very difficult. Part of the difficulty therefore lies in distinguishing the ‘essential elements’, defining the nature, character and identity of the Westminster Model, from the particular aspects of any national constitution at a given time.

Arend Lijphart attempted to define the Westminster Model in terms of macro-level institutional design choices, such as the type of electoral system used, whether there is a strong second chamber, whether the state is federal or unitary, or whether there is a constitutionally entrenched and judicially enforceable set of fundamental rights. In other words, he equates the Westminster system with a majoritarian understanding of democracy.

Lijphart's approach, while it might be useful for political scientists, is unhelpful for comparative constitutional scholars. Table 5.1 contrasts six constitutional systems – Australia, Barbados, Canada, India, Malta and New Zealand. As can be seen, there is considerable variety of design choice between them on issues such whether or not there is a written constitution, whether the state structure is federal or unity, the strength of judicial review, the electoral system, and bicameralism. None of these countries would be regarded as an unambiguously ‘Westminster’ system by Lijphart (Barbados, and New Zealand before the 1996 electoral reforms, are closest). Yet any useful definition of the Westminster Model as a global-imperial family of constitutional systems would have to include all of these countries.

To avoid confusion, this book defines the Westminster Model as ‘a parliamentary democracy in the British-imperial constitutional tradition’. This definition has two criteria, both of which must be satisfied for a country's political system to be regarded as belonging to the Westminster Model. First, it must be a parliamentary democracy. Second, it must belong to, or have been profoundly influenced by, the British-imperial constitutional tradition.

At the core of parliamentary democracy is a complex, multifaceted relationship between the Head of State, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the parliamentary majority, the Opposition, and the voting public. It is known as a ‘parliamentary democracy’ because the executive is politically responsible to Parliament, and Parliament has the final say both in legislation and government.