Cabinet System
Different countries around the world use different systems of governance. The type of system adopted by a given country determines the relationship among the arms of government and the powers each exercise[1]. Westminster system of government, which is also known as cabinet system is a parliamentary democratic system that is modeled to conform to the structure of politics in the United Kingdom. One country that has several features of this system is Australia. At the very apex of authority is the Governor-General, who appoints ministers, ambassadors and judges. The government is actually chosen by members of the lower house who are democratically elected[2]. However, a senate exists, which has the power to question the duties and daily functioning of the executive. For this reason, the government is in constant need of support from members of the lower house . The government in the Australian system is headed by a prime minister who heads the cabinet. The cabinet is held responsible by the lower house. The party that has the majority members in the lower house is usually mandated to be the one from which the prime minister hails. However, incase the party from which the prime minister hails does not have majority members in the lower house, then the prime minister forms an inclusive government where other parties may form a coalition with the prime minister’s party. Like any other democratic system, the Westminster system in Australia has an opposition’s axis, which is composed of the party with the second largest number of members in the lower house. A constitutional monarch or president exists in this system of government and acts on the advice of the prime minister[3]. This monarch or president is not a politician and his/her duties are deemed to be ceremonial. However, the ceremonial duties associated with this office pertain to only daily routines. The monarch, for instance in Australia has numerous reserve powers.
Irrespective of the different systems of governments used in the world, there are features that tend to be common to the majority of the systems. Many governments have the executive, judiciary and legislature arms within their governments[4]. These arms of government should have well-defined duties and responsibilities[5]. The functioning, duties and responsibilities of the three arms of the government should work separately to ensure that none goes beyond its mandate. In Australia, the legislature makes laws, the executive implements the laws while the judiciary interprets the laws. The doctrine of separation of powers is founded under the assumption that the three arms of the government should function separately where their duties should not overlap. Any overlapping might be misused by autocratic leaders to abuse power against citizens.
In the Australian system, there is a very thin line between the powers and duties of the executive and the legislature. Section 64 of the Australian constitution provides that members of the executive such as federal ministers must sit in parliament[6]. This provision in the Australian government system established the connection between the legislature and the executive. Moreover, the Australian High Court has previously held that it is impossible and inconsistent with the British traditions to separate legislative and executive powers. This, therefore, becomes a challenge to the two arms of the government to check each others’ powers. In the Westminster system, the legislature can delegate some of its powers to the executive. The legislature has the capacity to pass on its legislative authority to the executive. This occurs when the legislature allows the executive to make regulations, which are under an Act passed by the legislature. In addition to delegating some of its powers to the executive, the legislature has the power to over-rule powers held by the executive. When the government makes policies that are self-serving to government employees at the expense of the general population, a parliament that exercises freedom from the executive is able to function as the public’s watchdog by revoking such policies through legislation[7]. As earlier mentioned, the government is formed by the party with the majority members in the lower house. Moreover, the rules of governance stipulate that the cabinet members must be elected legislatures. Given the strict requirement for party discipline, members of the party in the cabinet cannot criticize the executive since they belong there. In fact, the members of the cabinet must at all times defend the government’s stand irrespective of whether they concur with it or not.
These scenarios of power fusion instead of power separation between the executive and the legislature have rendered the legislature incapable of controlling the executive[8]. The doctrine of separation of powers was intended to balance the power among all the three arms of the government. The need to balance this power was critical because when left unchecked, any of the arms, especially the executive could abuse power by advancing policies and practices that were against the common good of the Australian citizens. Lack of clear balance of power among these arms of the government provides freedom to the arms to function in an uncontrolled environment. Consequently, the public is left unshielded from the excessive powers of the executive.
On other hand, the judiciary within the Westminster has been able to maintain its independence from the other arms of the government[9]. The judiciary encourages its separation of power from other political arms of the government so that it remains impartial in interpreting the law. For instance, if the judiciary is not fully separated from the executive, it would find it hard to prosecute executive officers who have broken the law, on the grounds that they play some complementary roles to each other. The public would, therefore, find no justice in the judiciary where the executive officers have failed to execute their mandate towards the Australian people.
The government and other stakeholders realized the manner in which the executive and the legislature were fused in terms of their power. To check the powers of the executive arm of the government, the constitution of Australia was written to give the lower house power to ensure the responsibility of the executive[10]. Therefore, the legislature is mandated to hold the executive responsible in its duty execution. This mandated given to the lower house by the constitution aims at making the executive accountable in its constitutional duties towards the citizens of Australia. For instance if the executive fails to perform its duties, the lower house should compel it to honor its mandate. However, the accountability expected from the executive by the lower house has not been forthcoming because the executive and the lower house have fused their power. The fusion of power has rendered the lower house ineffective in holding the executive accountable.
To counter this ineffectiveness, the Westminster system has a feature that complements the lower house in holding the executive accountable. This feature is the senate. Since the lower house is unable to question the executive, the senate has been performing this duty. The senate has the ability to query the executive, block and amend legislation[11]. The government has not been able to control the senate because its composition is not the same as that of the lower house. Many minor parties have been able to gain access to the senate. The senate is not involved in the cabinet formation[12]. This provides it with the power it requires to question the work and functions of the executive and the lower house. Through its separation of power from the executive, the senate is able to raise concerns in case the executive abuses power or fails to perform its constitutional duty.
In conclusion, the Westminster system of governance differs from one country to another though it has common features across the divide. Although the system claims to respect the doctrine of separation of powers, many critiques view the system as a fusion of power. Failure to separate the executive from that of the legislature is dangerous to any given country. The danger arises from the failure of the legislature to control the powers of the executive. An uncontrolled executive power may go beyond its mandate, leading to suffering of the public. The Australian system has put mechanisms in place to check the powers of the cabinet. One of the mechanisms is making the executive answerable to the lower house. Moreover, the senate has the ability to question and query decisions made by the executive.
Bibliography
Books, LLC. Democracy: Westminster System, Federalist Papers, Grassroots Democracy, Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy, Potsdam Declaration, The End of History and the Last Man, Totalitarian Democracy, Accountability, Consensus Democrac. California: General books, 2011.
Books, Hephaetus. Articles on Westminster System, Including: Politics of Canada, Governor-General of Australia, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Parliament, President of Ireland, Responsible Government, Taoiseach, Governor General of Canada. New York: John wiley & sons, 2011.
Esaiasson, Peter. Beyond Westminster Congress: The Nordic Experience. Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2000.
Kumarasingham, Harshan. A Political Legacy of the British Empire: Power and the Westminster System in Post-Colonial India and Sri Lanka. London: Routledge, 2013.
Marchant, Leslie. The Westminster tradition and Australia: the parliamentary democratic system inherited from Britain. Virginia: University of Virginia, 2009.
Patapan Haig, and Wanna, John. Westminster Legacies: Democracy And Responsible Government in Asia And the Pacific.Virginia: UNSW Press, 2005.
Ryan, Selwyn. Winner Takes All: The Westminster Experience in the Anglophone Caribbean. West Indies: University of the West Indies, 2007.
Rommele, Andrea and Farrell, David. Political Parties And Political Systems: The Concept Of Linkage Revisited. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005.
Rhodes, Williams and Wellwer, Patrick. Comparing Westminster. \oxford: Oxford university Press, 2009.
Scaglia, Beatriz. Political Systems, Political Thought: Focus on the Westminster System. New York: BiblioBazaar, 2010.
Upham, Steadman. The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small- Scale Sedentary Societies. Massachussetts: CUP Archive, 2004.
Weller, Patrick. 2005. First Among Equals: Prime Ministers in Westminster Systems. California: Allen & Unwin, 2005.
[1] Beatriz, scaglia; Political Systems, Political Thought: Focus on the Westminster System ( New York: BiblioBazaar, 2010), 45.
[2] Peter, esaiasson. Beyond Westminster Congress: The Nordic Experience(Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2000), 23.
[3] Williams, Rhodes. Comparing Westminster (Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2009), 92.
[4] Steadman, Uphan. The Evolution of Political Systems: Sociopolitics in Small- Scale Sedentary Societies (Massachussetts: CUP Archive, 2004), 123.
[5] Patrick, Weller. First Among Equals: Prime Ministers in Westminster Systems (California: Allen & Unwin, 2005), 56.
[6] Haig, papatan and , John, Wanna. Westminster Legacies: Democracy And Responsible Government in Asia And the Pacific (Virginia: UNSW Press, 2005), 193.
[7] Haphaetus, Books. Articles on Westminster System, Including: Politics of Canada, Governor-General of Australia, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Parliament, President of Ireland, Responsible Government, Taoiseach, Governor General of Canada (New York: John wiley & sons, 2011), 45.
[8] Harshan, Kumarasingham. A Political Legacy of the British Empire: Power and the Westminster System in Post-Colonial India and Sri Lanka(London: Routledge, 2013), 78.
[9] LLc, Books. Democracy: Westminster System, Federalist Papers, Grassroots Democracy, Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy, Potsdam Declaration, The End of History and the Last Man, Totalitarian Democracy, Accountability, Consensus Democrac (California: General books, 2011), 76.
[10] Selwyn, Ryan Winner Takes All: The Westminster Experience in the Anglophone Caribbean (West Indies: University of the West Indies, 2007), 23.
[11] Leslie, Marchant. The Westminster tradition and Australia: the parliamentary democratic system inherited from Britain (Virginia: University of Virginia, 2009), 34.
[12] Andrea, Rommele and Farrell, David. . Political Parties And Political Systems: The Concept Of Linkage Revisited (New York: Greenwood Publishing Group), 35.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]