The And Of The Westminster

One of the most celebrated forms of democracy, the "Westminster model" has been a defining feature of the British political system for the past century. Coined after the location where the Houses of Parliament stand, the system is also sometimes referred to as the majoritarian model, in that majority rule is a central attribute of the model. The characterising factors of the model have been present throughout modern British political history, but more apparent in some years than others. The years 1945-1970 symbolise a strong alignment with the main features of the model, in which bare majority cabinets and the concentration of executive power in one party delineated the British political system. The 1970s on the other hand saw a deviation

The prospect for change in the House of lords has been an endless debate in British politics. The structure of the Chamber has bought about a significant argument for a transformative change in its composition. The upper chamber has already experienced some reformations over the last 100 years, including the Life Peerages Act (1958) and the Lords Act of 1999. The Lords Act reduced the number of hereditary peers to 92 members. This was seen as a significant amendment but academics claim a greater change is needed to establish a more democratic and effective body (Seidle, 2003). Brazier argues the House of Lords continues to be “unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable” (2008, p. 66). The current composition of the Lords consists of mostly appointed peers, known as life peers, whom are appointed by the Prime Minister. There are currently 707 life peers and 88 hereditary peers. Most importantly, the chamber includes only 26 bishops which remain the only elected members (Parliament UK (2015). This significant proportion suggests the necessity for reforming the composition of the Lords. This essay will assess the merits of switching to a fully-elected House of Lords. I will use the elected U.S. Senate to assess whether a fully-elected upper house would be an effective reform. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010 agreed “to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation” (Russell, 2013, p. 265).

This is not to say independent MPs are unable to voice their constituents’ concerns, merely that by design, responsible government is fashioned through negative control – in other words, by dissenting votes through votes of confidence, non-confidence or rejecting money bills, and thereby calling a new election. Cabinet acts; Parliament scrutinizes their actions. For instance, although Donald Savoie wrote that “Parliament continues to move away from one of its central roles,” he stressed that its foundational mold was Gladstone’s instruction to his MPs that ‘You are not here to govern, but rather to hold to account those who do.’ Consequently, ministerial responsibility sets the stage for the fused executive-legislature. Through collective ministerial responsibility, the entire party

The quality of a democracy is regulated by the electoral system that awards seats in democratic assemblies to those seeking office. This paper will compare the electoral systems of the parliaments of the United Kingdom (herein called Britain) and Sweden in order to determine which country has the preferred electoral system. The quality to be measured is the fairness of democratic representation, which is to say, how properly the various public interests are represented and how much control voters have over their government. The first part of the paper will study each electoral system separately, looking at the mechanics of how the members of parliament are elected, what kind of political party

The lack of a codified and entrenched constitution is quite problematic when considering the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which at its crudest form has the potential to create a ‘flat’ constitution with no hierarchy of laws. Lack of hierarchy is harmful and degrades important principles by downplaying their significance i.e., by placing them in the same pedestal alongside Acts of Parliament having no constitutional significance. UK’s membership in the EU has indeed brought about severe implications on the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament but what it has also done is

Arend Lipjhart’s majoritarian model of democracy is closely linked to the Westminster style of government, and it is the similarities between the Majoritarian model and this government that has resulted in this model being referred to as the Westminster model. This majoritarian model places emphasis on single party cabinets, concentrated power and the majority rule. Despite the initial appearance that Westminster has deviated from the majoritarian model, upon closer inspection it is clearly shown that the Westminster system is still a strong majoritarian system. This essay attempts to analyse Lipjhart’s model and the relevance that it is to the present day coalition Government at Westminster, and the ways in which the traditional majoritarian system has been challenged in recent years.

The role of the MP’s and the functions in which they carry out is a major contribution to UK parliament. The House of Commons are known to be the most dominant chamber in parliament and all 650 members are elected by the British people to speak for their needs and issues. They exercise parliamentary sovereignty which gives parliament ‘legislative sovereignty’ (Fairclough, P.E., Lynch, P. and Magee, E. (2013) and are involved in five main functions: Representation, The House of Commons have represented the common people of Britain for numerous years and do so due to the British peoples vote towards their political party. Each individual MP must invariably approve all of their party’s policies and disprove the opposing parties. (House of commons (2010). The House of Commons MPs contribute to the UK Whip System. Those who are nominated by each political party to arrange the party’s contribution to parliament and ensure an uttermost vote are received by party members and the overall vote

Democracy can be divided into separate different types. Presidentialism is a democratic type of government where president is either the head of state or a representative to the parliament. There are also hybrid regimes that combine different type of democracies to best fit that country’s needs. In other words, there are many types of democracies, although this essay will focus on three types of democratic systems: the presidential system, the semi-presidential system, and the parliamentary system. As for countries that are transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy, they need a type of government that would not bring a sudden change to the political status quo, for it could be devastating, but also slowly, yet steadily, introduce democratic type of governing. It would also need to be resilient to a collapse of democracy and be just at the same time. This essay will try to cover types of democratic systems, including both positive and negative sides, and explain what sort of democratic government would be the best for a country transitioning into a democratic state.

Many challenges put a stress on Modern Democracy because of the political theories and ideology our government holds, the current politicians taking office, inequalities throughout social classes and economies, and the opinions of “We the People”. Nearly every country claims to be some form of a democracy, but not all these self-proclaimed democracies allow for free politics, good government, and rule of law (Crick, 2002). Liberal democracy has begun to win over its royalist, fascist, and collectivist rivals over the course of the last few centuries, and the freedom to vote has been steadily expanded to those who were without it. But the liberal democracies of the world do have problems. Democracy is only as good as its citizens, and the quality of those citizens demands certain constant factors (7 Concerns, 2012).

Scotland fits well into Arend Lijphart’s consensus model of democracy, however only to a certain extent. Arend Lijphart’s strategy of the consensus model is how majoritarian a government is. The consensus model aims to share out power so that it is not all down to the one governing party. The consensus model is very important when it comes to Scotland as it can be argued that is only effective for highly divided societies. There are a few significant elements such as party systems, proportional representation and the comparison between the Scotland and New Zealand which will be investigated in this essay.

Having a unicameral UK government has always been a consideration. However, attempts to reform it or remove it, has become a controversial topic. Some critics believe that the removal of a bicameral government will be expensive, give the government too much power and reduce representation. Others consider the abolition of it to be more democratic and cheaper as it takes less time. This essay will discuss the requirement of the House of Lords considering its benefits and harms. It will also acknowledge its impacts on Westminster and Scottish Parliament, the power of the parliament and the legislative process of constitutional reform.

Presidentialism and parliamentarism are two major forms of democratic government systems. Nearly all political systems in the world are modeled on them. (Mahler, 2000) The former is best respresented by the United States while the latter one is represented by the United Kingdom. The discussion in this essay is based on pure presidentialism and pure parliamentarism, excluding those political forms which contain only some features of these two systems. The focus of this essay is on the virtues and vices of both systems and the suitability of which system

The two types of Parliamentary democracies are direct democracy, also known as consociational or consensus democracy, and representative democracy, otherwise called majoritarian democracy (Dickovick 118-120). A consensus democracy is founded on the principle that the citizens govern directly and that power is distributed between the executive and legislative branches to prevent and limit one branch from gaining too much power. An example of a consensus democracy is Switzerland, as it promotes consensus of the people, and it exhibits the factors necessary for a direct democracy. Alternatively, a majoritarian democracy is based on the principle of majority rules, and that power is concentrated and centralized. The United Kingdom is an example of a majoritarian democracy because it follows the 'majority rule ' principle and possesses all the qualities of a representative democracy. While consensus democracy and majoritarian democracies are both forms of democracy, the contrasting approaches to democratic rule they engage in - foremost pertaining to the ideas of distribution of political power, causes the two types of democracy to be diametrically opposite.

Abraham Lincoln’s statement from the Gettysburg Address described a democracy as “the Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from Earth” (“The Gettysburg Address”). To completely see how a democracy works, one must know the importance of it. A democratic government can be clarified in four diverse ways: protected, substantive, procedural, and process-situated. In this particular circumstance, an ideal approach to take a gander at a majority rules system is from the substantive point of view. “Substantive approaches focus on the conditions of life and politics given regime promotes: Does this regime promote human welfare individual freedom, security, equity, public deliberation, and peaceful conflict resolution?” (Tilly 7). Various nations all over the world, for example, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, India, and Japan all have or had a democratic based government. Nations are liable to pick a vote based government in light of the fact that in a way it truly represents the general population, however, it has its constraints.

Majoritarian electoral rules function as the pragmatist’s approach to democracy by attempting to deliver tangible results while proportional representation aims to deliver the symbolic values of democracy such as equality and fairness. The following is an evaluation of the characteristics of proportional and majoritarian electoral rules and how these attributes affect governments. “The development and maintenance of democracy” will be evaluated through three metrics governability, accountability, and representativeness, all of which can be used to frame both benefits and disadvantages of the two systems in question. Finally, the Egypt and Argentina will reveal that proportional representation yields more stable democracy.