What use is the Westminster Model of British Government?

The Westminster model for centuries has always been the face of British politics. “Traditionally British political scientists tended to believe that the Westminster model provided democratic and effective government” and “was well suited to gradual and evolutionary change, capable of adapting where appropriate but conserving traditions and conventions that had proven themselves to be effective over a long period” (McAulla, 2006, p. 14). However, within recent decades the debate of whether the Westminster model is of use to the British government was created. This can largely be a result to the United Kingdom joining the European Union and aspects of devolution. To answer the question of what use is the Westminster model of British government, the Westminster model must firstly be understood. Thus, I will first explain the core features of the Westminster model and then assess its use of British government.
The Westminster model is a unique one and parliamentary sovereignty exemplifies this. Under the Westminster system, power resides exclusively in a single national authority; parliament with no entrenched and autonomous powers being vested in any other body (Norton, 2004, p. 324). As such, no national body can question the legitimacy of its decisions, however, theoretically, the monarch holds the power to dissolve parliament. Other than that, parliament can pass any bill it wishes in theory and can remove any previously made law as parliament cannot bind their successors to existing legislation. Though, it should be noted that the judiciary can question legislation on legal grounds but it cannot block or overturn any legislation. As such, parliament has the ultimate power. This is completely different from the United States where the American Constitution provides for and the establishment of the separation of governing powers between legislative, executive and the judiciary and incorporates a series of both checks and balances thereby ensuring no branch of government has too much power.
Additionally, within the Westminster system, there is majority party control of the executive. Traditionally, Britain had a two party political system whereby they compete to gain majority control of parliament (McAnulla, 2006, p. 13). Parliament is elected using the first-past-the-vote system hence; one political party can usually obtain a majority in the House of Commons. The leader of the winning party is then responsible for forming a cabinet of ministers who are usually selected from the MPs of the majority party. Thus, cabinet ministers who form the executive are usually also members of the legislative; giving parliament a lot of power. This fusion works as it is supported by traditions of strong party discipline (McAnulla, 2006, p. 13). This discipline is ensured by each party operating a ‘whip’ system to ensure that back-bench MPs support their leadership. Under this system, MPs can be subject to varieties of punishment if they do not back the party line.
This leads to another unique characteristic of the Westminster model, strong cabinet government. In fact, Wright (2008, p. 48) argues that strong government is ‘the big truth’ about British politics, the key to understanding its character (cited in McAnulla, 2006, p. 14). Within this model, the Prime Minister appoints ministers which are accountable to parliament. The work of ministers is coordinated through cabinet meetings chaired by the prime minister and the cabinet takes collective responsibility for all decisions taken by government (McAnulla, 2006, p. 14). In other words, strong cabinet government basically means that “the executive is in a powerful position to lead government and pass the legislation it wishes” (McAnulla, 2006, p. 14).
Further, there is also the existence of an institutionalised opposition. This facilitates the main losing party to form a shadow cabinet responsible for opposing the government. Thus, ensuring the present government is held to account in parliament (McAnulla, 2006, p. 14). All of these features are what makes the Westminster model distinctive and even though there were numerous changes over the years, these key features remain present today.
However, it should be noted that there are three variants of the Westminster model - the Prime Ministerial Model, the Cabinet Model and the Baronial model - all of which presents an answer of who holds the most power within the model. Within the Prime Ministerial model argued by McIntosh (1962) and Crossman (1963) posits that the Prime Minister dominates the government and policy-making. He or she has the power to appoint or remove ministers, set cabinet agenda and appoint senior civil servants. The Prime Minister is also in a strong position to shape the overall direction of policy while ministers remain preoccupied with their designated areas (McAnulla, 2006, p. 15). On the other hand, Jones (1969) argued that power lies in the collective decision-making body of cabinet as the Prime Minister is heavily dependent on his or her ministers. Practically, this argument has merits as it is difficult for the Prime Minister to have the knowledge or expertise of departments and policy areas that would enable him or her to dominate government (McAnulla, 2006, p. 16). Whereas, the Baronial model states that it is the individual members who have enormous power over their own departments, which they manage with relative independence from other ministers including the Prime Minister. Norton (2000) argues that there are limits to collegiality between ministers since most ministers will resent interference by others within their areas of concern (McAnulla, 2006, p. 16). As such, according to academics, traditionally, there are three variants of the Westminster model and of where power really lies.
Nevertheless, the Westminster model does have some advantages to the British government. Particularly, the model has been justified on normative grounds that is, it is desirable and works well as well as pragmatic grounds; the model is deeply embedded to alter fully. For instance, in 2004, the government moved to create a Supreme Court and a full separation of the executive and judiciary thereby removing the Law Lords from the House of Lords. But the change has encountered some judicial resistance (Dunleavy, 2006, p. 321). Hence, it can be seen that since the Westminster model is so embedded into British government, it will be extremely difficult to change this system.
Another advantage of the Westminster model is that it creates a strong government which is invested with real power to head the country. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing as it depends on the party in power and their intentions. As Dicey notes
“The sovereignty of Parliament is (from a legal point of view) the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. ... The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament ... has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever, and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament” (Dicey, 1915, pp 3-4; cited in Prosser, 1996, p. 475).
However, the model has in place safeguards to prevent the ruling party abusing power as they are held to account by the opposition and the House of Lords. As such, the Westminster model is of use to British government as it gives government actual power to do as they wish provided the betterment of the people.
Conversely, critics argue that the model neglects the informal aspects of the political process (McAnulla, 2006, p. 16). Many assert that the Westminster model concentrates on the political elite and the central political institutions of the state (Gamble, 1999, 406). For instance, little attention is paid to the impact which interest groups such as businesses can have on the decisions a government makes. This focus on Westminster institutions means that various regional, local and sub-national institutions that hold power are ignored in terms of their importance (McAnulla, 2006, p. 17). This can be a major problem since due to the United Kingdom’s role in the European Union, there now exists other bodies that challenge the majority party’s power.
Moreover, critics argue that even if the Westminster model has proven useful in the past, over recent decades it has been an increasingly outdated system of British politics (McAnulla, 2006, p. 17). Factors such as growth in interest groups, entry into the European Union and globalization have been used to support this claim. For instance, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (then the European Community) in 1973 meant that the United Kingdom parliament was no longer the sole decision-making body concerning British law (McAnulla, 2006, p. 17). This is exemplified for example where British law and European law conflicts, European law would take precedence.
Ultimately, though there are weaknesses of the model, supporters of the Westminster model emphasize its efficiency, its ability to make decisions quickly without being blocked by other institutional powers and its internal systems of correction. Thus, the use of the Westminster model is to give government actual power to direct the state efficiently.

Bibliography
Dunleavy, Patrick, 2006, ‘The Westminster Model and the Distinctiveness of British Politics” in Patrick Dunleavy et al. (eds), Developments in British Politics 8 (London, Palgrave Macmillan).
Gamble, Andrew, 1990, ‘Theories of British Politics’ in Political Studies, vol. 38, pp. 404-420.
McAnulla, Stuart, 2006, British Politics: A Critical Introduction (London: Continuum).
Norton, Philip, 2004, ‘The Changing Constitution’, in Bill Jones et al. (eds), Politics UK (Essex: Pearson Education Limited)
Prosser, Tony, 1996, ‘Understanding the British constitution’ in Political studies, vol. 44, pp. 473-487. http://www.dadalos.org/int/parteien/grundkurs4/gb/westminster.htm Word Count: 1,482