Westminster system

The most common trap is assuming that parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can do absolutely anything without any limitations. While Parliament has supreme legal authority, in practice, its power is limited by political realities, public opinion, and conventions. In countries like India, judicial review also acts as a check. Don't pick options suggesting unlimited, unchecked power.

Students often confuse the formal authority of the Head of State with the real power wielded by the Prime Minister. The Head of State (President or Monarch) is largely ceremonial, acting on the advice of the government. The Prime Minister is the head of government and exercises executive power. Think of the Head of State as the formal face and the Prime Minister as the decision-maker.

Responsible government is enforced through mechanisms like votes of no confidence. For example, in 1999, the Indian government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee lost a vote of confidence by one vote and had to resign. This demonstrates how the legislature can hold the executive accountable.

The main criticism is that FPTP can lead to disproportionate results, where a party wins a majority of seats with less than a majority of the votes. This can result in governments that don't truly represent the will of the people. Smaller parties are often disadvantaged. For example, in the UK, the Liberal Democrats often receive a significant share of the vote but far fewer seats than the Conservative or Labour parties.

Cabinet solidarity requires all cabinet members to publicly support government policy. If a minister cannot support a policy, the convention is that they should resign. A recent example would be a UK minister resigning over disagreements with the government's Brexit policy.

The Opposition scrutinizes government policies, proposes alternative solutions, and holds the government accountable. A strong opposition is essential because it provides a check on the government's power and ensures that different perspectives are considered. It prevents the government from becoming complacent or authoritarian.

This provision embodies the core principle of the Westminster system where the Head of State (President) is a constitutional figurehead who acts on the advice of the elected executive (Council of Ministers led by the Prime Minister). It means real executive power rests with the elected government, not the President. The implications are that India is a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential one.

Critics argue that the FPTP system can marginalize minority groups and that cabinet solidarity can stifle dissent. Some also argue that the focus on party discipline can reduce the independence of individual MPs. In response, one could argue that while these are valid concerns, the Westminster system provides a stable framework for government and that reforms can be implemented to address these issues, such as proportional representation or greater protections for minority rights.

Potential reforms could include exploring alternative electoral systems like proportional representation to ensure greater representation of diverse groups. Strengthening parliamentary committees to enhance scrutiny of government actions. Codifying conventions to provide greater clarity and stability, especially in situations involving coalition governments. Also, empowering individual MPs to exercise greater independence.

A key difference lies in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In the UK, Parliament is considered supreme and can make or repeal any law. In India, while Parliament is powerful, its powers are subject to the Constitution and judicial review by the Supreme Court.

The Westminster system aims to ensure responsible government by making the executive accountable to the legislature. This solves the problem of potential executive overreach or authoritarianism by requiring the government to maintain the confidence of the elected representatives. No other mechanism guarantees this level of ongoing accountability as directly.

Articles related to the President (Article 52 onwards), the Prime Minister (Article 74 onwards), and Parliament (Article 79 onwards) are all highly relevant. Specifically, Article 74, which deals with the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President, is a direct reflection of the Westminster model.