Westminster Model and the Government System in the UK - Essay Example

?Westminster Model and the Government System in the UK The UK's system of government does not conform to the Westminster Model at present. The following discussion proves this contention. The Westminster model enjoyed its heyday in the early to mid – twentieth century, during the prevalence of strong nation states. Thereafter, this model has gradually been losing its legitimacy and efficacy. Considerable criticism has been attracted by this model regarding its incapacity to deal with new challenges and difficulties. A major challenge that has had substantial effect is the effect of globalisation of the economy (Lapsley , 2008, p. 10). This development has seriously undermined the notion of a strong nation state. Another challenge to the Westminster model is the New Public Management standard, and this has wrought basic changes to the relationship between civil servants and Ministers. Perhaps the greatest influence has been that of the European Union, which has seriously weakened the notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty (Lapsley , 2008, p. 10). This situation has been worsened by the devolution of responsibilities to elected assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Parliament in Scotland. These latter devolutionary changes have posed a serious challenge to the supremacy of the Westminster executive. In addition, these have shown the Westminster model as being inappropriate in a polity that enjoys greater decentralisation (Lapsley , 2008, p. 10). The Westminster model is distinguished by unhindered executive superiority. This makes certain that parliamentary majority enjoys undisputed control over the central institutions of the government. Consequently, authority and political power are central to the state. In this system, governance is restricted to the elite who are seized with the public good. Such governance functions in a self – adjusting and balanced constitutional system (Diamond, 2010). The Glorious Revolution of 1688 destroyed an attempt to perpetuate a Catholic Monarchy. This was achieved by William of Orange and his wife Mary II, and it firmly established the supremacy of the Executive. Such dominance of the Executive has remained the hallmark of the political tradition of the UK. This excellent system is characterised by an unbiased civil service and shared ministerial accountability (Diamond, 2010). This perspective regarding the UK government is not unanimous, and has been subjected to considerable doubt. It is believed by a significant number of authorities that the longstanding authority of the government has been gradually eroded. In fact there has been a shift in power, both horizontally and vertically. Thus, the vertical shift has seen the transfer of power to the European Union and international institutions. Furthermore, the horizontal shift has witnessed the transfer of power to civil society and private corporations (Diamond, 2010). There has been an undeniable establishment of new territorial power centres. These are located outside the UK and have resulted from constitutional reform and decentralisation. Due to these momentous developments, it is difficult to view the Westminster model as a true reflection of empirical reality. There has been a transformation from government to governance, and this has drawn in a vast array of networks and individuals (Diamond, 2010). To a major extent, the government of the UK has retained considerable consistency in its structure and function. This has prevailed, despite the advent of collectivism and the monumental changes that its society has been subjected to. The government is decisive and accountable, with scant change in the institutions of Westminster and Whitehall. It has been the established practice for politicians of the various political hues to consider themselves as responsible and influential arbiters of national interest (Diamond, 2010). This has drastically diminished any attempt to engender a major reform to the government. The supremacy of the Executive gained significantly in strength, subsequent to the assumption of power by New Labour in the year 1997. Under the guise of modernising the nation and its institutions, the Blair and Gordon administrations spared no effort in attempting to reinforce the top – down hierarchical nature of the political tradition and public administration of the nation (Diamond, 2010). The Westminster model has several distinguishing features. One of the most important of these is the deliberate manner in which it discards restrictions on power. Such limits are commonplace in democracies. Although, the rule of law limits the actions of the ruling party, there are very few political limits imposed on it. Those in favour of the Westminster model have emphasised that this framework of majority rule guarantees transparent responsibility on political parties, with regard to governmental actions that are founded on the manifesto of their party (Doring, 1991). The contemporary UK is a combination of several varied interests, which discounts the naive assumption that this country strictly follows the Westminster model. The actuating forces in the UK are of a domestic, regional and global nature. The effect of these forces is cumulative, and this feature has to be included in any related analysis. In fact, the Westminster model of UK politics is traditional and a simplification of the conflicting modern realities. Any study of this model has to take into account the influence of the European Union on the UK and its institutions (Mannin, 2010, p. 36). The theory of separation of powers envisages the compartmentalisation of the different branches of the government. On the other hand the Westminster model entails a unification of the executive and legislative powers. In this system, the members of the political executive are also those of the legislature. The fundamental assumption on which the government in the UK is based is that of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The latter denotes that the major decisions emanate from the Parliamentarians and that there is no higher authority. A very important feature of this supremacy is that even if an international treaty is ratified by the government, it does not of its own accord result in duties and rights that can be enforced in court (Stanley). Such enforcement requires the enactment of legislation. Consequently, the European Communities Act 1972 was enacted, in order to incorporate European Union law into UK law. However, the UK Parliament is not limited by the European Communities Act 1972, from modifying or revoking this piece of legislation (Stanley). This model enjoys democracy and legitimacy, principally due to the fact that the Ministers are accountable to Parliament, and that the people of the UK elect the House of Commons. The civil service, which has a tradition of being neutral, implements the decisions of the government, which are taken by the Ministers. Another important facet of this model is that the Members of Parliament are not delegates but representatives of the citizens (Stanley). This makes it necessary for them to act in the public interest and not behave as the promoters of the interests of their constituents. The New Labour government embarked upon constitutional reform. This initiative indicated a clear absence of consistency, as exemplified in its programme of devolution. The latter has been dubbed as asymmetric and it has depicted considerable divergence in its implementation and conception. Although, many would consider devolution to be the greatest achievement made by Tony Blair, it was not a well thought out plan. In fact, devolution was principally an ad hoc response to imagined problems and political pressures. Devolution was characterised by an authoritarian outlook and the selective bestowal of power. Moreover, competing perspectives of democracy had influenced this process, and the underlying model was that of the Westminster (Mitchell , 2010, p. 85). It had been the tradition to view the UK as a unitary state. All this changed with the process of devolution, which has necessitated a reassessment. Thus, the Select Committee on the Constitution of the House of Lords termed the UK as a union state and not a unitary state. This was in the context of identifying the fundamental tenets of the constitution (Mitchell , 2010, p. 85). However, this notion has failed to stand the test of time, and can no longer stand. There are a number of unions that have gone into the formation of the UK and this fact is ignored by the notion that the UK is a union state. Furthermore, these unions have left a lasting impression on the development of the UK. Evidence for this contention is provided by the different motivations underlying devolution and the manner in which devolution has developed in the first ten years of its existence. There are longstanding asymmetries in the UK, and this can be observed in the devolution of the Scottish legislature, the absence of primary legislative powers in the Welsh Assembly, the consociational institutions of Northern Ireland and the absence of devolution in England (Mitchell , 2010, p. 86). All the same, the Westminster model is fundamental to the development and establishment of devolution. Moreover, the Westminster Parliament incorporates the basis of the developed bodies, which also have roots in politics of the anti – Westminster variety. Reforms, by and large have been largely influenced by the politics and politicians of Westminster, and this explains its influence from the very beginning (Mitchell , 2010, p. 86). Notwithstanding the oratory of the new politics, devolved institutions have not been able to distance themselves from their genealogical origins. To some extent, this can be attributed to the failure of these institutions to completely detach themselves from the Westminster model. For instance, the practice of constituting the Executive from within the assembly, served to restrict the extent to which devolved institutions could be fundamentally different (Mitchell , 2010, p. 87). The roots of the devolved government have been seen to persist, even after a decade. However, polities have been observed to be adopting different directions. Thus, the UK has finally reached a stage, where its government is asymmetric, includes common origins, and embarks upon different paths. This has rendered it a slacker union (Mitchell , 2010, p. 87). The Westminster model has been understood as rule without any opposition by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. In addition, this requires the support of the majority in Westminster and a civil service that is politically neutral. This notion has been held variously, to be privatised, weakened or hollowed out. Consequently, it has been criticised of being simplistic (Duggett, 2009). Such criticism has been justified by the ceding of power externally to the European Union and Brussels. With regard to lower down the hierarchy, there has been a relinquishing of power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. What has remained after these developments is a drastically diminished Westminster government. The latter has been seen to be endowed with a significantly lower ability to decide and achieve results (Duggett, 2009). In addition, the notion of governance has been employed to highlight the fact that contemporary governing has become enormously complicated. This is in no small measure due to the prevalence of a number of varied groups and power holders. As a result, the principal activity of those involved in governance was nothing other than negotiating between the different power groups. In this scenario, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were seen to be much less powerful than what they had been in the past (Duggett, 2009). The Westminster model has been criticised for having transformed into an entity that is neither responsible nor representative, subsequent to the recent changes that it has undergone. These critics have called for a major alteration in the constitutional arrangements (Lapsley , 2008, p. 15). Although, the Westminster model has withstood the march of time, it has generated grave challenges to its continuance, in the form that it finds itself. In the contemporary political environment, there are a plethora of intricate relationships, which place the notion of responsible elected, political figures under severe stress. A major cause behind this development is the increasing globalisation of the economy. This globalisation has significantly reduced the importance of individual nations (Lapsley , 2008, p. 16). In addition, management ideas have been introduced, and these have modified the structure of the various departments of the government and altered the arrangements related to accountability. Another influencing factor is the European Union, which has substantially weakened the Westminster model. The devolutionary process could be of great importance for the continuance of the Westminster model, as it could result in a more federated structure or in the very dismantling of the UK. However, this danger is not likely to take place in the near future. What is unnerving is that the unresolved anomalies and tensions in the various devolution schemes could cause additional change in constitutional arrangements (Lapsley , 2008, p. 16). The Westminster model vests the executive with several resources to establish an effective government. Some of these resources are control over the parliamentary agenda, budgetary process, delegated legislation, and prerogative powers. These resources, in the main, remain effective, during a hung parliament. All the same there could be mounting pressure to permit the Lower House to vote on its own dissolution. In addition, a minority government would exercise control over the civil service, make policies and develop plans for the allocation of resources. A minority government enjoys all political resources, merely on the grounds of being the government (Hazell, Paun, Yong, & Haddon, 2009). In the Westminster model, decision makers were made immune to popular pressure, and were enabled to enhance their autonomy. In addition, they were required to be responsive to a minimum. The extant electoral mechanism in this model offers a simplified choice between two parties. Although, there was an elitist distribution of power, the results were far superior to any other form of governance (Taylor, 2007, p. 37). The concept of Single-Member Simple Plurality (SMSP) has been central to perpetuating the myth of parliamentary democracy. It has promoted elite government and central autonomy. In addition, such autonomy has been projected as being desirable, natural and a distinguishing feature of good governance (Taylor, 2007, p. 38). Good governance depends on the interrelation of power in Parliamentary Sovereignty. The entity that exercises control over the House of Commons wields power over Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Executive. This correlation provides a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo. As a result, elections are not essentially democratic and a mechanism for voters to indicate their choices on policy alternatives, but a system of control over those who select from policy alternatives (Taylor, 2007, p. 38). Since the formation of the modern state, there has been a delegation of functions to an array of bodies that enjoy quasi autonomy. This has resulted in a serious challenge to the functioning of representative democracy, from the democratic as well as administrative areas. The maximum effect of these challenges has been observed in the democracies based on the Westminster model. These democracies are based on the logic of departments headed by ministers and the convention that Ministers are individually responsible to Parliament (Flinders, 2011, p. 1). These challenges assumed greater significance towards the end of the previous century. This was in no small measure due to the effect of the New Public Management, which led to the unravelling of the state. Reform campaigns mushroomed across the democratic nations, due to apprehensions regarding democratic deficit and patronage. These changes were based on the conviction that accountability and transparency could be improved by adopting novel regional democratic structures. An important instance of this was the UK, where the supporters of devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales contended that this reform would result in an unprecedented burgeoning of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (Flinders, 2011, p. 1). In accordance with the above discussion, it can be surmised that the Westminster model of British Government has weakened significantly, with the passage of time. List of References Diamond, P. (2010). Beyond the Westminster model. Retrieved November 16, 2011, from Renewal: http://www.renewal.org.uk/articles/beyond-the-westminster-model/ Doring, H. (1991). The Westminster model. Retrieved November 17, 2011, from http://www.dadalos.org/int/parteien/grundkurs4/gb/westminster.htm Duggett, M. (2009, March 25). What can we say about the Westminster Model Today? Retrieved November 17, 2011, from http://www.psa.ac.uk/2009/pps/Duggett.pdf Flinders, M. (2011). Devolution, delegation and the Westminster Model: a comparative analysis of developments within the UK, 1998-2009 . Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 49(1), pp. 1 – 28. Hazell, R., Paun, A., Yong, B., & Haddon, C. (2009, December). Making Minority Government Work: Hung parliaments and the challenges for Westminster and Whitehall. Retrieved November 17, 2011, from http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/pdfs/making-minority-gov-work.pdf Lapsley , I. (2008). Accounting in politics: devolution and democratic accountability. Taylor & Francis. Mannin, M. L. (2010). British government and politics: balancing Europeanization and independence. Rowman & Littlefield. Mitchell , J. (2010). The Westminster Model and the State of Unions. Parliamentary Affairs, 63(1), pp. 85 – 88. Stanley, M. (n.d.). Civil Service Reform: The Traditional Whitehall and Westminster Model. Retrieved November 17, 2011, from http://www.civilservant.org.uk/reformwhat.shtml Taylor, A. (2007). The Strategic Impact of the Electoral System and the Definition of ‘Good’ Governance. British Politics, 2, pp. 20 – 44. Read More