Westminster Model Research Articles

Experiencing the executive: Gender, ministers and institutions in Scotland

Women are historically under-represented amongst government ministers. While most research on gender and executives concentrates on who gets to (and stays at) the top, we examine the executive as a gendered institution, investigating how ministers experience the ‘heart of the machine’ once they get there. Using documentary sources and interviews with former ministers, we explore these dynamics through a case study of the early years of the (then) Scottish Executive (1999-2007), examining how men and women ministers navigated the complex rules and relationships of government in a new institution, and moving the research agenda on gender and the executive in the UK beyond Westminster and Whitehall. While we find evidence of both nominal and substantive change – in terms of ministerial recruitment, portfolio allocation and different ways of working – our findings highlight the continuing drag of the Westminster model on the ‘making’ of the Scottish Executive, limiting possibilities for innovation.

Small Opposition Parties in a Westminster System: How Did the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Participation, Decision-Making and Oversight in the UK House of Commons?

Opposition parties are a key feature of parliamentary democracies, but their participation rights differ markedly. In the UK House of Commons, the institutional operation of the Westminster model facilitates a marked distinction between the rights afforded to the Official Opposition party compared to smaller opposition parties. During times of crisis, these Westminster model dynamics can shift, impacting opposition rights. This article uses a case study of the COVID-19 pandemic to assess institutional inequalities across opposition party groups. Drawing on an analysis of over 4000 contributions to parliamentary debates and interviews with MPs, we examine the pandemic’s impact on the roles of opposition parties beyond the Official Opposition. We find that the pandemic initially generated unprecedented cooperation between the government and small opposition parties but that this was short-lived. In the long term, the pandemic exacerbated existing institutional barriers and the size and geographical concentration of small opposition parties in the devolved nations brought disproportionate participation and oversight barriers. This suggests the need to guarantee formal opposition rights within Westminster systems beyond the Official Opposition party to ensure that all political parties have the capacity to carry out their functions during times of crisis.

Prorogation in Commonwealth Caribbean countries: an analysis of the relevance of the Miller decision

ABSTRACT The judgment in the Miller case in the UK in September 2019 which overturned the decision of Prime Minister Boris Johnson to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not applicable in the Commonwealth Caribbean. The view of Derek O’Brien in the Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics in January 2022, which suggests otherwise, is challenged. The article addresses the use of the prorogation of Parliament as a means of avoiding adverse political circumstances in the Commonwealth Caribbean by Prime Ministers and Presidents to ensure political survival in the following cases: 1989 – Prime Minister Herbert Blaize in Grenada. 2002 – Prime Minister Patrick Manning in Trinidad and Tobago. 2012 – Prime Minister Tillman Thomas in Grenada. 2014 – President Donald Ramotar in Guyana. In the Commonwealth Caribbean, all of the constitutions are written, unlike the United Kingdom. The constitutional dissimilarities on prorogation between the Westminster-Whitehall model in the Commonwealth Caribbean and the Westminster model in the UK will confirm the inapplicability of the Miller case to the Commonwealth Caribbean.

What kind of discipline are we? A network analysis of British Politics

AbstractResearch on British politics has traditionally been too reliant on a single model for understanding its field of inquiry—initially the Westminster model and then, since the 2000s, the governance-focused ‘differentiated polity model’. It has also been criticised for being preoccupied by the institutions that make up the Westminster system in terms of its substantive analytical focus, neglecting theory and international comparisons, failing to learn from other disciplines, and neglecting issues of age, gender, ethnicity and the environment (Marsh in Br Polit 7:43–54, 2012; Randall in Br Polit 7:17–29, 2012; BJPIR in Br J Polit Int Relat 24:3–10, 2022). This article aims to substantiate some of these claims using a network analysis of articles published in the journal British Politics to illuminate the who and the what of contemporary British politics research: Who authors it, which communities they form, what topics they focus on, and how they relate to the rest of the discipline. The evidence presented paints a picture of a valuable, but also still somewhat insular and fragmented discipline, and one that is itself inflected by structured inequalities.

Brexit and UK policy-making: an overview

ABSTRACT The Westminster Model (WM) remains dominant in UK post-Brexit policy-making, with few signs that the UK Government is willing to cede power to the devolved administrations and external interests. Despite the plebiscitary vote for Brexit in the 2016 Referendum, the implementation of that change has been dependent on the vagaries of the WM, and a succession of internal crises within the governing Conservative Party. The case studies in the special issue illustrate how the consequent problems of complexity and capacity are compounded by the dilemma of tracking EU legislation while attempting to demonstrate that the UK has ‘taken back control’ and is delivering a ‘Global Britain’ strategy. This results in UK Brexit policy-making progressing in an ad hoc and unpredictable manner. The evidence from the case studies suggests that the UK will not become a rule taker but will increasingly seek to preserve or reclaim as much as possible of the benefits that it enjoyed as a full member state. This will not remove all the costs associated with Brexit, but over time it might significantly reduce them. The resulting compromise will not satisfy either Brexit purists or Remainers, but it is likely to become the agreed framework within which Governments operate.

Post-Brexit challenges to the UK machinery of government in an ‘Age of Fiasco’: the dangers of muddling through?

ABSTRACT This article analyses the existing and potential effects of EU withdrawal on the UK machinery of government (MoG) in an ‘age of fiasco’. Brexit has been a system-wide shock that has the potential to fundamentally alter British domestic policy and politics. Above all, departing from the European Union (EU) represents an unprecedented ‘stress test’ for the government machinery. Brexit has been the greatest challenge confronting the MoG since the Second World War. Yet its impact on the UK state’s structures and processes has thus far been modest. The pattern of change indicates gradual adaptation and modification of institutions rather than transformation of the governing machinery through De-Europeanisation and dismantling. That said, EU withdrawal is aggravating pathologies in the Westminster Model (WM) that contribute towards the erosion of UK policymaking. This article contends that the capacity of UK government was weakening before Brexit, while withdrawal from Europe imposes additional burdens. The governing approach of incrementalism and ‘muddling through’ has come under severe strain.

Montesquieu’s Theory of the Separation of Powers, Legislative Flexibility and Judicial Restraint in an Unwritten Constitution

A constitution is a body of laws that is composed of various branches which exist as the legal source of its powers. These are designed to regulate by defining the role of the executive, legislature and the judiciary, which are the three organs of government that Baron Montesquieu defined as necessary in a constitution. The constitutional government can be evaluated on its capacity (i) to maintain the rule of law, (ii) to preserve an electoral mechanism for political democracy and (iii) to protect a morally and legally acceptable set of substantive rights. The conventions are the source of unwritten constitutions which preserve the balance of powers by relying on the concept of judicial restraint and deference to the executive. The contemporary relevance of Baron Montesquieu’s theory is in the context of a fused system, and the question is the extent to which the executive can override the judicial powers in matters of state.
 Keywords: separation of powers; unwritten constitution; Westminster model; constitutionalism; juridical review; “one voice” principle; administrative deference.

The Welsh criminal justice system: On the jagged edge By R.Jones, R.W.Jones, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 2022. pp. 292. £24.99 (pbk); £24.99 (ebk). ISBN: 9781786839435; 9781786839442

The Welsh criminal justice system: On the jagged edge By R.Jones, R.W.Jones, Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 2022. pp. 292. £24.99 (pbk); £24.99 (ebk). ISBN: 9781786839435; 9781786839442

The direction of gender equality policy in Britain post-Brexit: towards a masculinised Westminster model

ABSTRACT This article examines gender equality policy in Britain, pre-and post-Brexit. Through a gendered analysis of European Union (EU) directives over forty years, we examine which policies have been key to Britain’s gender equality agenda. We find that the EU’s gender equality framework has been particularly integral to the advancement of ‘class-based’ policies, which seek to ameliorate inequalities that arise from the sexual division of labour. Taken together, we argue that the impact of Brexit risks directly rolling back these class-based gains. This is as a result of a shift away from a more consensual style of policymaking at the supranational level, towards a top-down, adversarial and masculinised Westminster Model, which marginalises women from decision-making fora. As it stands, advancements in gender equality policies are unlikely to be regained in the current political climate due to the absence of the stimulus of the EU for domestic gender equality reform.

Levelling Up the UK: If not the Conservatives, will Labour Learn the Lessons from Past Policy Failings?

AbstractThis article considers the levelling‐up agenda in the UK, examining the Johnson government's original proposals to tackle regional and local inequality and its continuation under new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak following the short‐lived premiership of Liz Truss. The 2022 Levelling Up in the United Kingdom White Paper is notable for the frank and wholesale critique it provides of previous governments’—both Tory and Labour—efforts to address the pressing issue of geographic inequality. The assessment was that a pattern of ad hoc and incoherent reforms needed to be replaced by a stable, long term and system‐wide approach to change. Yet, under Johnson, Truss and now Sunak, policy churn is continuing, with an approach that falls short in following the lessons set out in the White Paper. We provide a detailed analysis of the government's critique of past reforms, the lessons it has set out and why its reform programme is likely to repeat past failings. Crucially, the approach leaves the structure of central government almost untouched, with substantive reforms instead focussed at the local governance level. We argue the government's programme perpetuates the ‘power‐hoarding’ tendencies of the Westminster model, a key bulwark against meaningfully addressing the UK's spatial inequality problem. We conclude that the levelling‐up agenda, missions and targets are unlikely to be met under Rishi Sunak, reflecting the endemic nature of short‐termism and centralisation of power in the UK's public policy approach. We then consider the approach of Starmer's Labour Party to levelling up and the issues it needs to confront if it forms the next government.

Dear British politics—where is the race and racism?

This article explores the neglect of race and racism in the discipline of British politics. I outline why this has happened, the consequences of such neglect and how it might be remedied. The article proceeds in four stages: First, it makes the case that British politics has neglected race and racism. I do this by showing that race does not feature within the core concerns of the discipline, and that despite the fact that race may be noted in the relationship between demography and representation, its status as a social construct is not addressed. Second, the article explores the question of disciplinary reflexivity. Drawing on Emirbayer and Desmond’s (2012) racial reflexivity framework, I delineate the disciplinary and scholastic unconscious of British politics, showing that the reliance on the Westminster Model obscures questions of race. Next, the article discusses the Sewell Report (2021), explicating its post-racism narrative, and draws parallels between the findings of the report and the study of British politics. The final section of the article outlines a framework for a British politics of race. The framework draws on critical race theory, and Britain’s imperial history of colonialism and empire-building and thus puts the study of race at the centre of the discipline.

The Impact of Brexit on the Transformation of Majoritarian Democracy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The article attempts to answer whether, and if so, to what extent, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union (the so-called Brexit) impacted the British model of democracy. The starting point for the analysis is the famous classification of Arend Lijphart, who distinguished two main models of democracy – Westminster and consensus – identifying the United Kingdom as a prime example of the first of them. Using the method of institutional and legal analysis and the historical method, the author tries to prove the thesis that Brexit has shaken the foundations of the majoritarian democracy in the United Kingdom. However, the transformations of this model are not a new phenomenon, as they are part of the trend of changes occurring in this country, at least since the end of the 1990s. The article also proves the thesis that the serious political and systemic tensions to which Brexit – for very different reasons – led can be treated as temporary, as there is little indication that these tensions would permanently undermine the foundations of the Westminster model of democracy in the United Kingdom.

„Gabinet cieni” w westminsterskim systemie rządów

The „shadow cabinet” appointed by the largest opposition party in the House of Commons is an integral part of the Westminster system of government. The practice of its creation originated in the UK in the second half of the 19th century, where it underwent a significant evolution linked to the coordination of the opposition’s strategy enabling it to become a government cabinet, as well as to the official recognition of the position of opposition party leader, who since 1937 has received a fixed salary. The modern and at the same time permanent appointment of shadow ministers who are at the same time spokespersons of the opposition on specific ministerial issues dates back to the long Conservative Party governments (1951–1964) against which the Labour Party formulated an official „shadow cabinet”. The aim of this article was to show the genesis of the „shadow cabinet”, to define its tasks and functions in the Westminster model of parliamentary-cabinet government.

Parliamentary practices in Holyrood: ‘new politics’ and the SNP

The Scottish Parliament was meant to represent a revolution in the way that Scots were governed as its supporters frequently expressed the hope that such a body would be a new type of institution that would represent a break with the Westminster model and would offer a new approach to the way that the business of government is carried on. The political arena that emerged out of the blueprint produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the 1990s was the result of a historic consensus and was designed as a more inclusive, representative, transparent and collegial body which was to usher in ‘new politics’ for Scotland. This paper will therefore seek to examine to what extent the Scottish Constitutional Convention’s initial goal of a more open, representative and participative approach to politics has been met and question the impact of its relative success on the surge of nationalism in Scotland.

Taking Back Control as Democratic Theory

AbstractThe slogan ‘take back control’ was central to Brexit. The conception of democracy this slogan embodies is the traditional Westminster model. It is a model in the sense that it is supposed to provide a simplified characterisation of the operative principles of UK politics and government, although practice in fact diverges from those principles. It is also a model in the sense that the Westminster system is seen by those favouring Brexit as an ideal to which practice needs to be restored. The model can be associated with a corresponding conception of democracies in the international order. However, there are both functional and democratic disadvantages with that account of democracy and the international order, disadvantages that the development of the EU highlights. Two alternative models of democracy beyond the nation state are identified, before concluding that the Westminster model has a past but not a future.

Why it Is Indeed Time for the Westminster Model to Be Retired from Comparative Politics

AbstractThe term ‘Westminster model’ is frequently used by political scientists and practitioners. But our recent examination (Russell and Serban 2021), published in this journal, uncovered wide variation in how it is defined – demonstrating that it is more ‘muddle’ than ‘model’. This sparked a response article from Flinders et al. (2021), which we in turn respond to in this piece. We briefly revisit our initial research questions, methodology and findings, before reflecting on their analysis. We emphasize that, notwithstanding the critics’ negative tone, we and they agree on certain fundamentals. In particular on our original central point, that the ‘Westminster model’ is an ill-defined term with a long history, which mostly makes it unsuited to positivist comparative political science research. While the ‘Westminster model’ may have some valid vestigial uses, within the UK political system, or as an object of study for interpretivist political science, it does not provide a rigorous basis for case selection and comparative political science analysis.

‘Stretched But Not Snapped’: A Response to Russell and Serban on Retiring the ‘Westminster Model’

AbstractThis article engages with Meg Russell and Ruxandra Serban's (2021) argument that the Westminster model is ‘a concept stretched beyond repair’ that deserves ‘to be retired’. We examine the logic, theory and methods that led to such a powerful, potent and provocative argument. We suggest their approach may have inadvertently ‘muddied’ an already muddled concept. We assess the implications of ‘muddying’ for their conclusion that the Westminster model is, in essence, a dead concept in need of a decent funeral. We suggest the concept is ‘stretched but not snapped’ by developing a simple four-perspective broadening of the analytical lens. This approach aids understanding about what the concept covers, how it is operationalized and why it remains useful in comparative research.

The Brexit effect: Political implications of the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union

Brexit has brought tensions in European and (especially) British politics. This article illustrates the rationale, scope and research questions of the special issue, which investigates the first Brexit effects in the five years following the 2016 referendum. Taking the distribution of political power as our primary focus and analysing mainly – though not exclusively – British politics, we trace the first developments in the three domains of politics, polity and policy since the UK’s decision to leave the EU. In the politics domain, after the political uncertainties surrounding the referendum period, we detect a return to the power-hoarding dynamics typical of the Westminster model. However, the territorial and constitutional architectures of the British polity are under considerable strain, with Brexit strengthening the nationalistic movements in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the policy domain, despite strong common interests, Brexit has failed to produce cooperative EU–UK arrangements in finance and foreign policy.

Westminster as Usual? Three Interpretations for the UK Democracy

AbstractThe Brexit process has shattered the foundations of British politics, with prime ministerial resignations, government defeats, continuous rebellions and floor-crossings. These phenomena seem at odds with the usual decisiveness of Westminster systems. However, the aforementioned departures from the British tradition could be interpreted as compatible with the typical distance of any empirical reality from theoretical models, as exceptions to the rule due to the specificity of the European issue, or as the surfacing of some deeper social, economic and cultural tensions. Data alone are insufficient to confirm any of the alternative interpretations, although they seem to confirm the existence of long-term dynamics rather than some short-term exceptionalism. Within this scenario, the article suggests that a series of institutional innovations introduced since the late 1990s have facilitated the political consolidation of those tensions, contributed to the partisan dealignment, and made room for a potential departure from a Westminster model of democracy.

Metamorphic Moment of the Indian Polity: Anatomizing the Evolution and Changing Dynamics of the Indian State against the Protean Nature of Cooperative Federalism

The elusive and paradoxical nature of Indian polity has been evident in the amalgamation of Western patterns of bureaucratic organization, participatory politics with indigenous practices and institutional framework that had an organic growth on the Indian soil. While post-colonial India was characterized by the incorporation of democratic political ethos and structural architecture, Westminster model of parliamentary government and representative legal institutions, it did not imply the exact replication of the British architectonic system of advanced industrial democracy. As the Indian political process is subjected to dramatic transmutations and cyclical changes, it has eventually acquired a mass character and vibrancy with the exuberant participation of marginalized and underprivileged political formations and social groups in the political arena, coupled with the regionalization of the polity, altering the terms of political domination and sowing the seeds of an increasingly complex mechanism of negotiation, competitive bargaining, alliance and coalition-building, in a cooperative federalist arrangement. The principle objective of this paper is to put an emphasis on the role of the Indian state, the transformation of Indian federalism and the political process, while holistically encapsulating the development and multidimensional patterns associated with the Indian political system, tracing the departure from the heyday of the Congress system and Nehruvian civic nationalism to the crystallization of a majoritarian edifice, propelled by Hindu Nationalism.