|
Fusion
of power instead of separation of power
"According
to its name, the legislative is there to pass laws, but in reality its
main task is to form and control the government." With this visionary
statement, Walter Bagehot anticipated a peculiarity of the Westminster
model by describing its "hidden being" and effective secret as
the fusion of the legislative and executive functions. The cabinet,
which is collectively responsible to parliament and which the electorate
can only sanction afterwards by voting for the opposition, is usually
made up entirely of the leaders of a single party. This is made possible
by the first-past-the-post system, which usually produces an overall
majority for a single party and makes coalition government unnecessary.
This first-past-the-post system, which only functions provided social
conflicts remain one-dimensional, puts smaller parties at a
disadvantage, yet is largely accepted by the population in the interests
of creating strong government.
According
to strict traditions, the British government has to be made up of
Members of Parliament (unlike in a presidential system where outside
advisors may be appointed) and in comparison to most other international
democracies, it has wide range of formal powers (practically, according
to changing constellations within and between parties). The following
contribute to this power:
1.
The first-past-the-post system causes a situation in which a minority of
votes (usual) regularly creates an absolute majority;
2. A lack of a federal countervailing power;
3. A lack of constitutional court (with an increasing tendency to test
the legality of actions taken by ministers in the courts);
4. The control of parliament by cabinet using methods anchored in parliamentary
procedure;
5. A reduction in the power of veto for the House of Lords.
[Taken
and translated from:
Herbert Döring: Präsidentialisierung des parlamentarischen Systems?
Westminster und Whitehall in der Ära Thatcher; in: Aus Politik und
Zeitgeschichte 28/1991] |
|
Unlike
most other democratic systems in Europe and the USA which are
based on the principle of power separation, the British system
of government is characterized by the way in which powers are
merged. The historic counterbalancing structure between the
Crown, the House of Lords and the Houses of Parliament gradually
receded with the establishment of the constitutional democracy
and the defeat of aristocratic rule as a consequence of
electoral reform during the 19th century. The rule of parliament
developed into rule of the House of Commons and, with the
arrival political-party-based democracy, was transformed again
into government rule over the House of Commons based on an
overall majority. The term parliamentary sovereignty, therefore,
has become synonymous for sovereignty of a centralized British
government (...).
Critics
of the Westminster model point out the lack of counter balances
to check the executive's power and the power of the head of
government. Supporters of the Westminster model emphasize its efficiency,
its ability to make decisions quickly without being blocked by
other institutional powers, its not being forced into compromise,
which provides voters with clear alternatives, and its internal
systems of correction which are capable of forcing the
resignation of the prime minister and early elections.
[Taken
and translated from:
Roland Sturm: Staatsordnung und politisches System; in: Hans
Kastendiek u.a. (Hg.), Länderbericht Großbritannien, Bonn BpB
1994] |
|
