Pros and Cons of the Westminister System

Pros and Cons of the Westminster or Parliamentary System

Pros

1. Parliamentary systems have enabled a relatively peaceful transition from Monarchy and other autocratic forms of government to liberal democracy. There have been numerous parliamentary systems that have slowly devolved power from a monarch which has absolute power through councils and slowly into popular houses. The British Westminster is probably the best known of this form, though other nations have achieved similar devolutions. The complicated executive in the parliamentary system is a function of the original Executives - the Crown - slowly being shunted out of real political and executive power. While the Crown still has a real role in Britain, in Australia and Canada the Crown is written out of real political power by the Constitutions that place Crown power in a Governor-General or Viceroy as the Monarch's representative. It is accepted in modern parliamentary systems that the Ceremonial Executive will not act constitutionally unless on the advice of the Prime Minister.

2. Parliamentary systems allow for flexible legislative structures such as bicameral, unicameral, etc. Though this isn't unique to the Westminster system as the Washington style states in the United States have a mix of bicameral and unicameral legislatures as well. The Norwegian system included the lower house dividing itself after an election into an upper 'Lagting' and lower house though this was discontinued in 2009.

3. The Prime Minister, or head of the executive cabinet, can be replaced without an election. Poor performing or unpopular Prime Ministers can be replaced by the majority party without requiring the approval of the electorate. This is a function of the Executive not being directly elected as it is in a Presidential System such as the American Washington system. The American President can be removed via impeachment proceedings, but not because the majority party in Congress decides they need a new party...