The British Empire: A source for good or evil? February 2014 | Page 9
•
•
•
The stability of this system is from their institutions legislative, executive and judicial.
The legislative power : The Parliament is bicameral, with a lower house and upper house.
The lower house reflect the public opinion since the members are elected by direct universal
suffrage. They control the government work as well as budgetary expenditure and devise
laws. However, the upper house, often called a Senate, is designated by the Crown. Contrary
in lower house, the upper house members aren't always elected directly. Her legislative
power is limited because it take charge of civil and penal business.
The executive power : It is divided between the Crown and the government. The sovereign
influences but doesn't govern. The Crown choose the prime minister who will take
executives decisions.
The judicial power : The judges have got the last word on the interpretation of laws. They
apply a valor judgment and take position personally, without influence and motivations of
legislators. This power can be limited by lack of separation of different powers because it's
the prime minister who elected judges.
DOC 2 : The different institutions of Westminster system
3. A system efficient for the world
But the institutions of the Westminster system weren't defined in a Constitution. This system is
built up through many major text. It run thanks to implicit conventions or thanks to the two-party
system. It manages to establish in many countries too, what show of his efficacy and popularity.
The conventions works an extremely important role in the system of Westminster. For example,
it's the situation of the Prime Minister's job who isn't formally predicted in texts or of the monarch
who has a representative role while constitution give it to him more powers.
The two-party system characterizes the regime by a loyalty toward his political party. Contrary to
the American Congress, it's rare to see a British member of Parliament of the majority to oppose
the politic of the government or ask to him disturbing questions. It's the difference between both
systems because it results from separation of the different powers.
The Westminster system knew export and adapt his regime in different countries around the
world (Canada, Australia, India, New-Zealand). This countries have adopted a parliamentary
system where assemblies have supremacy or where the head of government possess the executive
power. In Canada, Elizabeth II must validate every laws adopted by Assemblies. India is a
particular case because she applies Westminster system by adding a federal system similar to that
of USA with a line management. The
real executive power belongs to
Prime Minister by the President is
the real head of state. India unfasten
from the Westminster, because the
President is elected by indirect vote
without being the Queen's
representative. Finally the
Westminster system was able
adapted for create stables regimes in
different countries for example in
India, where the federal system
allowed of adapted to several cultures
or religions.
DOC 3 : Countries of Commonwealth
1. (doc 1) Explain what is the Westminster system model.
2. (doc 3) What is the Commonwealth ? What are the countries compose it ?
3. Compare the Westminster system with that of the USA.
4. (doc 2 and paragraph 3) Why the Westminster system is stable ? Explain and conclude why this
system is a force for good in the world.