NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread goes out to all those who live in nations that use the "Westminster" form of government, that is, a symbolic head of state, and a Parliament, usually bicameral, which vests executive power to a Prime Minister of reasonable equivalent. What I would like to know is simply what is your opinion on any or all aspects of it. What do you like about it? What DON'T you like about it? Could it be reformed? Is it good as is? Is it very efficient, or nothing but a system wrought with coalition governments, and partisan bickering (Which can be said of almost any government)?

Now I'm a citizen of the United States, and I love our Presidential system, but I also like to look outside the box and see what's different. I have spent years studying many forms of government, and I must say this form has intrigued me the most. I especially would like to hear from citizens of the UK, Canada (Hiya neighbor!), and Commonwealth countries, but it doesn't matter. Also, any links supporting/defending the system would be helpful, as well as any regions in NationStates which possess this government. And you can even use this thread as a soapbox to express your view of the system. Hell, you can explain it to those who don't understand it. Any who, I hope you'll voice your opinion, and help others out in continuing a common debate.

I was born and brought up in the UK, where I grew accustomed to what you are calling the Wesminster system of govenment.

It has, or had anyway, some very strong points. The symbolic head of state is not so symbolic. The royal family does a great deal of promoting Britain abroad, but in a politically neutral manner. They do lots of work in strengthening the economic and cultural links with other nations, without being politically controversial. They are capable of being received well in both the USA and in Venezuela. which is a feat that no political head of state can manage.

Then we had a house of lords. Yes there were some holders of hereditary peerages that were a waste of space, but the majority of the house was made up of life peers, senior clergy and judges. The life peers were granted their titles for something, so they are experts in some field. Be it industry or entertainment, politics or charity work. These, together with the very moderate anglican clergy made up a very uselful review board, which was then rounded out with the legal expertise of the judges. A much more functional approval system than just having a second elected house, occupied by carrer politicians.

I now live in Brazil, a presidential federal republic with a political system modelled on the US one. We have a senate and a president and a house of representatives, and all they do is argue and steal money from the tax payers.

I prefer the "Westminster" system.

Parliamentary systems don’t have the dominating presidents, prime ministers are more checked. Presidents have informal powers that prime ministers don’t have; the power of status. Prime ministers are matched by opposition leaders; in a way presidents never are. They aren’t subject to question time and the other intricacies of the parliament. The risk with a prime minister is that they tend to control the lower house of the legislature. This just needs to be counteracted by a strong upper house, as seen in the Australian model.

Growing up with the Washminster system (The Australian hybrid of Westminster and Washington) I'd say that the system certinly has some good things to offer. :)

I think the symbolic head of state is a good thing because they can act as a goodwill ambassador to other nations in a way that a politically charged person like a president or a prime minister cannot hope to achieve. No matter where a president or prime minister goes, he/she carries the stigma of the current administration and its actions, which can very often be wildly unpopular in other nations. But the symbolic head of state only carries a fraction of that stigma, which allows them to bridge the gulf between nations more effectively.

I suppose our country would have a Westminster-type system, although we did away with the anachronism that is the bicameral parliament 35 years ago.

We have a parliamentarian system where the prime minister and government are dependent on support from the Riksdag (parliament) to govern, and are completely open to supervision by the parliament as well, a figure head monarch stripped of any political power as head of state, and a system of courts ending in the Supreme Court, which is not a constitutional court per se, but a court that deals with precedent, while the numerous Ombudsmen (ombudsman on justice (JO), the ombudsman on discrimination (DO), the ombudsman on sexual equality (HomO) and so on) together with the standing committee on the Constitution in the Riksdag monitor the rule of law and constitutionality in their respective areas.

I like our system, and it works very well for us. The addition of a clear cut constitutional court would be nice according to some, but our system doesn't really require one, so it doesn't bother me all that much.

I guess Germany has such a system.
There is the President, who takes the place of the queen/king.
Then there are two houses, Bundestag and Bundesrat - and a Chancellor.

I reckon it's pretty good. It works apparently, although problems can arise when two very different parties control the houses. But that can usually be sorted out.

I'm from Canada and I love our current system, that is the Westminster System.

It works. With the exception of the United States, the record for the presidential form of executive has been fairly dismal. I'm sure there is a better system, I just haven't seen it.

Washminster system (The Australian hybrid of Westminster and Washington)

An inaccurate way of thinking about it. I prefer Waercolminster. (Although partly inspired by Washington and Europe; dominately from the Australian colonial tradition/heritage which had its roots in Westminster parlimentarianism).

I quite like it - it gets the job done eventually