Westminster system

[7][8] Israel adopted a largely Westminster-inspired system of government upon declaring independence from the British Mandate of Palestine.

However, uncodified conventions, practices, and precedents continue to play a significant role in most countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure.

As an illustrative example, in the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and replaced him with opposition leader Malcolm Fraser.

In essence, the head of state, usually a monarch or president, is a ceremonial figurehead who is the theoretical, nominal or de jure source of executive power within the system.

This results in the situation where individual cabinet members in effect serve at the pleasure of the prime minister.

This custom also occurs in other countries are regions around the world using the Westminster System, as a legacy of British colonial rule.

In such nations, the prime minister is obligated to formally seek permission from the governor-general when implementing executive decisions, in a manner similar to the British system.

An analogous scenario also exists in republics in the Commonwealth of Nations, such as India or Trinidad and Tobago, where there is a president who functions similarly to a governor-general.

An unusual case lies in Israel and Japan, where the respective prime ministers have the full legal power to implement executive decisions, and presidential (in Israel) or imperial (in Japan) approval is not required; the prime ministers of these nations are fully the de jure source of executive authority, and not the head of state.

In the UK, the sovereign holds confidential weekly meetings with the prime minister to discuss governmental policy and to offer his or her opinions and advice on issues of the day.

In India, the prime minister is constitutionally bound to hold regular sessions with the president, in a similar manner to the aforementioned British practice.

This phrase means that the head of state's role in government is generally ceremonial and as a result does not directly institute executive powers.

Such a concept was reinforced in The English Constitution (1876) by Walter Bagehot, who distinguished between the separate "dignified" and "efficient" functions of government.

The sovereign should be a focal point for the nation ("dignified"), while the PM and cabinet actually undertook executive decisions ("efficient").

The Lascelles Principles were an attempt to create a convention to cover similar situations, but have not been tested in practice.

Because of differences in their written constitutions, the formal powers of monarchs, governors-general, and presidents vary greatly from one country to another.

In other Westminster countries, however, the upper house can sometimes exercise considerable power, as is the case for the Australian Senate.

While the Legislative Councils in British Australasian and North American colonies were unelected upper houses and some of them had since abolished themselves, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong has remained the sole chamber and had in 1995 evolved into a fully elected house, yet only part of the seats are returned by universal suffrage.

Australia is exceptional because the government faces a fully elected upper house, the Senate, which must be willing to pass all its legislation.

[18][19][20][21][22][23] The Australian Senate is unusual in that it maintains an ability to withhold supply from the government of the day – a power similar to that held in the UK until 1911 by the House of Lords, which has since then been impossible, in the Westminster system.

Some political scientists have held that the Australian system of government was consciously devised as a blend or hybrid of the Westminster and the United States systems of government, especially since the Australian Senate is a powerful upper house like the US Senate; this notion is expressed in the nickname "the Washminster mutation".

One of five countries other than the UK to use a Westminster system with a native monarch, along with Denmark, Lesotho, Malaysia, and Thailand.

One of five countries other than the UK to use a Westminster system with a native monarch, along with Denmark, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand.