How Relevant Is the Westminster Model
British politics is almost unique in the 21st century in that it has no written constitution. Instead, the constitution is a finely balance, near muddle of common law, judicial precedent, Acts of parliament, stature and conventions. It is recognized that the UK constitution has survived thus far, and has also proved to be far more flexible then it perhaps would be if it were codified. Conversely, there have been countless academics and parliamentarians who have suggested the idea of a codified constitution, such as Charter 88( who describe the current UK Constitution as a collection of laws, fictions, powers left over from the old monarchy and powers that we make up as we go along” ), and lamented its complexity.
In 1867, Walter Bagehot attempted to deconstruct and explain the parliamentary system of the UK in his Magnum Opus The English Constitution. The work, seminal enough to now be considered a part of the UK constitution itself, compared how the UK system differed from that of the United States and today there are clear distinctions with other parliamentary systems such as that of Germany or France or neighbouring Ireland. The Westminster Model, in a broader sense, refers to the “essential features of British government that, mainly through sheer longevity, form the present-day, conventional or mainstream view” . In a stricter, stripped down sense, it relies of sovereignty residing in the Houses of Parliament- Westminster in the case of Britain- to which the executive is answerable.
The Westminster Model has had perhaps as many advocates as it has critics. On the one hand, it can be said to provide strong and stable government as it relies on a backbone of monarchical rule, the ability to scrutinise and keep in check the executive
However, due to several changes, perhaps part and parcel of the evolutionary nature of the UK political system, it has been suggested by some that the model identified by Bagehot- the Westminster