Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:29:13.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model’: A Concept Stretched Beyond Repair

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2020

Meg Russell Open the ORCID record for Meg Russell [Opens in a new window]  and
Ruxandra Serban Open the ORCID record for Ruxandra Serban [Opens in a new window]
Meg Russell*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University College London, London, UK
Ruxandra Serban
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The term ‘Westminster model’, widely used in both the academic and practitioner literatures, is a familiar one. But detailed examination finds significant confusion about its meaning. This article follows Giovanni Sartori's advice for ‘reconstructing’ a social science term whose meaning may be unclear through review of its use in the recent literature. It finds that many authors in comparative politics use the term ‘Westminster model’ without definition, while those providing definitions associate it with a large (and sometimes conflicting) set of attributes, and a set of countries often not demonstrating those attributes. Some have sought to respect this diversity by proposing variants like ‘Washminster’ or ‘Eastminster’, while others suggest that the term should be seen as a loose ‘family resemblance’ concept. But on examination it no longer meets even the – relatively weak – requirements for family resemblance. To end the muddle, and the risk of flawed inferences and false generalization, comparative scholars should drop this term, and select cases based on more precise attributes instead.

Keywords

Westminster modelWestminster democracyWestminster systemconceptsconstitutions
Type
Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 744 - 764
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anckar, D (2007) Westminster Lilliputs? Parliaments in Former Small British Colonies. Parliamentary Affairs 60(4), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aucoin, P (2012) New Political Governance in Westminster Systems: Impartial Public Administration and Management Performance at Risk. Governance 25(2), 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, S (2003) Platypus and Parliament: The Australian Senate in Theory and Practice. Canberra: Department of the Senate.Google Scholar
Bagehot, W (2001) [1867] The English Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bari, AA (2007) British Westminster System in Asia: The Malaysian Variation. US–China Law Review 4(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Berger, B (2009) Political Theory, Political Science, and the End of Civic Engagement. Perspectives on Politics 7(2), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, M (2008) The Westminster Model, Governance and Judicial Reform. Parliamentary Affairs 61(4), 559–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, ML (2011) Slaying the ‘Westmonster’ in the Caribbean? Constitutional Reform in St Vincent and the Grenadines. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13(3), 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, A and Koop, R (2013) Parties, Elections, and the Future of Canadian Politics. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Brenton, S (2014) Ministerial Accountability for Departmental Actions Across Westminster Parliamentary Democracies. Australian Journal of Public Administration 73(4), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, M (1999) Obstinate or Obsolete? The State of the Canadian Federation. Regional and Federal Studies 9(2), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D (1974) The Canberra Model: Essays on Australian Government, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caramani, D (2017) Comparative Politics, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, J, Elkins, Z and Ginsburg, T (2014) Beyond Presidentialism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 44(3), 515–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D and Mahon, J (1993) Conceptual ‘Stretching’ Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review 87(4), 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smith, SA (1961) Westminster's Export Models: The Legal Framework of Responsible Government. Journal of Commonwealth Studies 1(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P (2010) Every Key ‘Westminster Model’ Country Now Has a Hung Parliament, Following Australia's ‘Dead Heat’ Election. LSE British Politics and Policy blog, 23 August. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/every-key-%e2%80%98westminster-model%e2%80%99-country-now-has-a-hung-parliament-following-australia%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98dead-heat%e2%80%99-election/.Google Scholar
Eggers, A and Spirling, A (2016) Party Cohesion in Westminster Systems: Inducements, Replacement and Discipline in the House of Commons, 1836–1910. British Journal of Political Science 46(3), 567–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichbaum, C and Shaw, R (2007) Ministerial Advisers, Politicization and the Retreat from Westminster: The Case of New Zealand. Public Administration 85(3), 609–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichbaum, C and Shaw, R (2011) Political Staff in Executive Government: Conceptualising and Mapping Roles Within the Core Executive. Australian Journal of Political Science 46(4), 584–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estevez-Abe, M (2006) Japan's Shift Toward a Westminster System: A Structural Analysis of the 2005 Lower House Election and its Aftermath. Asian Survey 46(4), 632–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M (2005) Majoritarian Democracy in Britain. West European Politics 28(1), 62–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, M (2006) The Half-Hearted Constitutional Revolution. In Dunleavy, P, Heffernan, R, Cowley, P and Hay, C (eds), Developments in British Politics 8. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–137.Google Scholar
Flinders, M (2009) Democratic Drift: Majoritarian Modification and Democratic Anomie in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, A (2003) Remaking the Constitution. In Dunleavy, P, Gamble, A, Heffernan, R and Peele, G (eds), Developments in British Politics 7. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 18–38.Google Scholar
Gamble, A (2006) The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 36(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J (1999) What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences. Polity 31(3), 357–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, G (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grube, D (2011) Speech Cycle? ‘Election-Defining Rhetoric’ in Westminster Democracies. Australian Journal of Political Science 46(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, A (2004) The ‘Westminster Model’ Constitution Overseas: Transplantation, Adaptation and Development in Commonwealth States. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 4(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazell, R (2008) Conclusion: Where Will the Westminster Model End Up? In Hazell R (ed.), Constitutional Futures Revisited: Britain's Constitution to 2020. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, A, Glouharova, S and Heath, O (2006) India: Two-Party Contests within a Multiparty System. In Gallagher, M and Mitchell, P (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar
Hendriks, F and Michels, A (2011) Democracy Transformed? Reforms in Britain and The Netherlands (1990–2010). International Journal of Public Administration 34(5), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, S and Noury, A (2016) Government–Opposition or Left–Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods 4(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkin, J and Bradbury, J (2006) British Statewide Parties and Multilevel Politics. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 36(1), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R (2010) Political Parties and the Electoral System. In Courtney, JC (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–223.Google Scholar
Judge, D (2003) Legislative Institutionalization: A Bent Analytical Arrow? Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 38(4), 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A (2008) Parliamentary Opposition in Westminster Democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Legislative Studies 14(1), 20–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, D, Richards, D, Geddes, A and Smith, M (2006) British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kerby, M and Banfield, AC (2014) The Determinants of Voluntary Judicial Resignation in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 52(3), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, P and Kettell, S (2006) In Defence of British Politics: The Past, Present and Future of the Discipline. British Politics 1(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopecký, P, Meyer, Sahling JH, Panizza, F, Scherlis, G, Schuster, C and Spirova, M (2016) Party Patronage in Contemporary Democracies: Results from an Expert Survey in 22 Countries from Five Regions. European Journal of Political Research 55(2), 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzmer, D (2006) Experimenting with Constitutional Change: Direct Election of the Prime Minister in Israel. European Constitutional Law Review 2(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumarasingham, H (2013) A Political Legacy of the British Empire: Power and the Parliamentary System in Post-Colonial India and Sri Lanka. London: I.B. Tauris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, R, Coxall, B and Robins, L (2011) British Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A (2012) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, JP (1970) The Government and Politics of Britain. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Melton, J, Stuart, C and Helen, D (2015) To Codify or Not to Codify? London: Constitution Unit.Google Scholar
Miller, R (2006) New Zealand Government and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R (2015) Democracy in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J (2010) The Narcissism of Small Differences: Scotland and Westminster. Parliamentary Affairs 63(1), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monk, D (2010) A Framework for Evaluating the Performance of Committees in Westminster Parliaments. Journal of Legislative Studies 16(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, R (2008) The Accountability Priorities of Australian Parliamentarians. Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(4), 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New Zealand Parliament (2014) Parliament Brief: What is Parliament. New Zealand Parliament, 14 March. www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/pbrief7/.Google Scholar
Nijzink, L (2001) Opposition in the New South African Parliament. Democratization 8(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P (2001) The Twilight of Westminster? Electoral Reform and its Consequences. Political Studies 49(5), 877–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, P (2014) The Changing Constitution. In Jones, B and Norton, P (eds), Politics UK. London: Routledge, pp. 250–270.Google Scholar
Palmer, G and Palmer, M (2004) Bridled Power: New Zealand's Constitution and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patapan, H, Wanna, J and Weller, P (2005) Westminster Legacies: Democracy and Responsible Government in Asia and the Pacific. Sydney: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
Paun, A (2011) After the Age of Majority? Multi-Party Governance and the Westminster Model. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 49(4), 440–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto-Duschinsky, M (1999) Send the Rascals Packing: Defects of Proportional Representation and the Virtues of the Westminster Model. Representation 36(2), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, RAW, Wanna, J and Weller, P (2009) Comparing Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, D and Smith, MJ (2004) Interpreting the World of Political Elites. Public Administration 82(4), 777–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, M (2013) The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, WC (1963) Logic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sartori, G (1970) Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review 64(4), 1033–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G (2009) [1984]. Guidelines for Concept Analysis. In Collier, D and Gerring, J (eds), Concepts and Method in Social Science: The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori. London: Routledge, pp. 97–150.Google Scholar
Simeon, R and Radin, BA (2010) Reflections on Comparing Federalisms: Canada and the United States. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 40(3), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, MP and Verney, DV (2003) Challenges to India's Centralized Parliamentary Federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 33(4), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solarz, MW (2012) ‘Third World’: The 60th Anniversary of a Concept that Changed History. Third World Quarterly 33(9), 1561–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, K, Narud, HM and Valen, H (2005) A More Fragile Chain of Governance in Norway. Western European Politics 28(4), 781–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E (1980) The Washminster Mutation. Politics 15(2), 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vowles, J (2000) Introducing Proportional Representation: The New Zealand Experience. Parliamentary Affairs 53(4), 680–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanna, J (2014) Australia's Future as a ‘Westminster Democracy’ – Threats to Combat, Stark Choices to Make. Australian Journal of Public Administration 73(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, P (2008) Westminster Systems. In Galligan, B and Roberts, W (eds), The Oxford Companion to Australian Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar