Ruptures and Continuities in the Westminster Model - conference report

The first session of the day covered East Africa, Southern Africa and West Africa, with Dr Dominic Burbidge (University of Oxford) chairing. Dr Daisy Ogembo (University of Birmingham) began by exploring the evolution of executive governance in Kenya. She revealed how Kenya moved from a Westminster-style system towards presidentialism due to a variety of historical and social dynamics.

l-r: Maame Mensa-Bonsu, Dominic Burbidge, Daisy Ogembo, Hugh Corder

Professor Hugh Corder (University of Cape Town) discussed the situation in South Africa, and declared its system of government to be ‘more about ruptures than continuities’, as it retained only some elements of the Westminster model. Dr Maame Mensa-Bonsu (Ashesi University) spoke on Ghana, explaining that the country’s political model was initially parliamentary but changed over time to a presidential system. She contrasted what she saw as the more cooperative dynamics of the parliamentary system with the greater friction that resulted from the adoption of a presidential system.

Session 2 covered the Caribbean and was chaired by Dr Charlotte Smith (National Archives). Professor Cynthia Barrow-Giles (University of the West Indies) discussed the development of Guyana’s governmental system. She pointed out that while much of the English-speaking Caribbean retained the Westminster model, Guyana diverged in significant ways, establishing a semi-parliamentary, semi-presidential system. Dr Derek O’Brien (Oxford Brookes University) examined the principle and practice of responsible government in the Westminster-style systems of a range of Caribbean countries, looking especially at prorogation and motions of no confidence. Dr Kate Quinn (University College London) explored the endurance of the Westminster system in much of the Caribbean. She highlighted certain ruptures that had nonetheless occurred in the history of the region, such as revolutionary government, interim government, and government by governor general.

Session 3 looked at Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and was chaired by Professor Annalise Acorn (University of Alberta). Professor Philippe Lagassé (Carleton University) spoke on the Canadian system. He argued that the federal authority and powers of the prime minister in Canada are not kept in check so much by the legislature, as by the authority of the provinces, the courts, and the civil service. Dr Benjamin Spagnolo (University of Cambridge) discussed Australia’s system, looking at the High Court’s reasoning with regard to matters relating to the parliamentary model and responsible government. Dr Mark Hickford (Thorndon Chambers, Wellington) explored the distinctive features of New Zealand’s Westminster model, such as the abolition of its upper house and its unicameral legislature.

The comments and questions put forward by the chairs of the different sessions, as well as by the audience, engaged with the issues raised by the talks and brought out the many possible approaches to studying the Westminster model. Participants discussed such topics as the function of courts within a Westminster-style system, how archival collections may preserve or disrupt colonial legacies, the role of populism in shaping systems of government, and the importance of conventions in Westminster parliamentary systems. The lively discussion continued over dinner at Balliol College.

The second day of the conference took place in the home of the Oxford Faculty of Law at the St Cross Building. First up in the morning was Session 4 of the conference covering South Asia and chaired by Rupavardhini Balakrishnan Raju (University of Oxford). Dr Asanga Welikala (University of Edinburgh) gave a comprehensive account of Sri Lanka’s initial use of a Westminster-style model and its subsequent replacement of that model with a presidential system – a replacement he lamented. Dr Yasser Kureshi (University of Oxford) brought out the complex history of clashes between prime ministers and governor generals in Pakistan, and the significant role of the military in that country's political affairs. Discussing the situation in India, Professor Arun Thiruvengadam (National Law School of India University) emphasized that, while some institutions had not fully realized the ideals set out in the Constitution, the Constitution had nonetheless come to be highly valued in India. This session ended the series of regional discussions of the Westminster model.

Session 5, chaired by Professor Sudhir Krishnaswamy (National Law School of India University), looked at continuities in the structure and operation of the Westminster model. Dr Paul Yowell (University of Oxford) offered an overview of governmental systems across the world, situating the countries with the Westminster model within a broader context of parliamentarism and presidentialism. He emphasized the advantage possessed by parliamentary systems in their ongoing accountability to a legislative body.

l to r: Timothy Endicott, Moiz Tundawala, Paul Yowell, Sudhir Krishnaswamy

Dr Moiz Tundawala (University of Oxford) focussed on the many facets of India’s governmental system, and pointed to how the figure of Gandhi has taken on the role of a symbolic figurehead for India’s parliamentary system. Professor Timothy Endicott examined how the Westminster model had fared in its country of origin: the United Kingdom. He found that the United Kingdom presented a strong case of the continuity of the Westminster model, despite a number of breaks along the way. He held that this continuity was due to a combination of historical accident, difficulties of change, and the particular strengths of the model in establishing executive government that is effective, but highly accountable.

Session 6, the final one of the conference, covered ruptures and changes in the Westminster model. It was chaired by Professor Catharine MacMillan (King’s College London). Opening the session, Professor Tarun Khaitan (London School of Economics) raised the issue of the stand-off between government effectiveness and government accountability, and explored how doubling-down on one of these elements may result in the diminished operation of the other. Dr Harshan Kumarasingham (University of Edinburgh) held that the greatest rupture in Westminster parliamentary models has been the decline of the mainstream study of the subject beyond the UK’s parliamentary system, a decline demonstrated by the disappearance of academic positions in commonwealth history. He also highlighted the growing importance of Indigenous history within the realm of constitutional legal studies. Professor Kate O’Regan (University of Oxford) examined the relationship between the executive and the legislature in Westminster systems, and pointed to the courts as an emerging player in this relationship.

As on the previous day, these three sessions on the final day of the conference were interspersed with animated discussions. The topics discussed included different ways of classifying systems of government, the relevance of a figurehead for the continuity of Westminster-style systems, and the importance of reviving interest in the study of the development of the Westminster model outside the United Kingdom. Dr Dominic Burbidge summed up the conference’s achievements in his closing remarks. He noted how the conference had brought together scholars looking for a common language with which to discuss the Westminster model, and stated that it had led to the discovery that a common language already existed but had been neglected. He expressed excitement as to how this ‘language’ could flourish in the future, and thanked everyone who had helped promote this development by organizing and participating in the conference.

A convivial dinner at All Souls College concluded this intensive two-day exploration of the Westminster parliamentary model in its different manifestations and historical trajectories around the world.