Are We Witnessing The Demise Of The "Westminster Model" In The Uk?

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 from the Westminster model, with a Lab-Lib coalition government being formed - a step away from the majoritarian notion of the model. Despite the restoration of cabinet dominance under the Thatcher governments of the late 70s and 80s, the progressive break away from the Westminster model continued. Moreover, in the past decade there have been significant steps taken away from the model - devolution, the limitations on British sovereignty as a consequence of its involvement in the EU, the re-shaping of party ideology and the growing use of referendums all serve to highlight this. Yet despite these deviations, concentration of power in one party and cabinet dominance still shapes British politics, the constitution is still flexible and the electoral system still produces disproportional results during general elections. A strict following of the model has ceased to exist since the 1970s, but despite this, to claim that we are witnessing the demise of the Westminster model is far fetched - the model may not be strictly implemented, but the main features of the model can still be seen in today's political climate.

A concentration of executive power in one party and bare majority cabinets is one of the main characteristics of the majoritarian model. In the last century, this has been a re-occurring trait, with coalition governments being very rare. The 1940-45 coalition between the Conservatives, who had a parliamentary majority, with the Labour and Liberal parties, is one such exception, but this was largely due to the fact that Britain was at war. The only example of a deviation from a concentration of executive power in one party in the post-war era is the two minority Labour governments of the 1970s. Internal strife within the Labour party and economic upheaval were largely to blame for this anomaly. With the exception of the 1970s however, executive power has very much been concentrated in one party - the Thatcher governments, Blair governments and presently Brown government all bare witness to this fact. The implementation of the first past the post system in British general elections ensures that coalition cabinets are very rare. Large majorities are achieved with less than half of the popular vote, a theme which will be addressed later on in the essay. As Lijphart points out, "the British one-party and bare-majority cabinet is the perfect embodiment of the principle of majority rule" . The UK's electoral system, as long as it remains first past the post, will continue to follow one of the main principles of the Westminster model in that executive power will be in the hands of one party and bare majority cabinets and not coalition cabinets.

A leading ideal of the Westminster model is that the electoral system is a winner takes all method, often leading to disproportional results. The UK continues to use the first past the post process, and in the climate of two-party politics, has more often than not produced large majorities for either the Conservatives or Labour with a relatively small portion of the popular vote. In the period 1979 to 1997, the winning party has won a clear majority of the seats in the House of Commons with never more than 44% of the popular vote. Even more pressing is the fact that in the most recent general election of 2005, the Labour party won by a reduced majority of 66 seats, with only 35.3% of the popular vote - the lowest in UK House of Commons history. An important factor in the decline for Labour support was the Iraq war of 2003, and yet the only one of the three main parties to have been totally opposed to the war, the Liberal Democrats, still could not get enough seats to become the official opposition. Despite earning 22.1% of the national vote, the Liberal Democrats won only 62 seats. All the elections since 1979, and particularly the 2005 election, all re-enforce the argument that the UK is still very much a majoritarian model construct - large parliamentary majorities are achieved with under half the popular vote. Despite pledges by New Labour in the run up to the 1997 elections to seriously think about reforming the electoral system, which would have been a significant step away from the Westminster model, this has failed to materialise, and in practice is very unlikely to. The party in power often owe the plurality method in some part for granting them more power than their share of votes would have constituted under a PR system, and so, with their majority in parliament, a change to the constitution in the form of electoral system change is unthinkable. As Graham Wilson rightly states: "they (party in power) back away from changes such as electoral reform which would work to their disadvantage". The highly disproportional results during UK general elections are proof that as long as the UK continues to use the first past the post method, it will continue to follow one of the main features of the majoritarian model.

This leads directly onto a third characteristic of the Westminster model, which is born out of the disproportional results during general elections - cabinet dominance. Theoretically, cabinet must be accountable to parliament, which has the power to vote them out of office. In practice however, this is very rarely the case as a consequence of the disproportionably large majorities gained by the winning party. Cabinet is composed of the main figures of the party in power, giving it, in most cases, domination over parliament to pass laws and govern relatively freely. The only anomaly to this trait in modern history has been the 1970s, in which government legislation did not go through as smoothly. Although Labour had the most seats in the Commons, they did not have a majority, and consequently a hung parliament. In essence, it's a chain reaction - the 1970s was a very rare case in that general election results did not produce the usual disproportional results attributed to the plurality method. This in turn breaks the mould of the two-party system, with the Liberals being the main benefactors in this case. As a consequence, cabinet do not dominate and are very much accountable to parliament