Are Westminster-Style Parliaments Truly Inflexible?

The Westminster system of parliamentary governance is often portrayed as a rigid and unchanging framework. However, recent discussions and events have brought into question the rigidity of such systems. This article explores whether Westminster-style parliaments, such as those found in the UK and many other Commonwealth countries, are completely inflexible and whether changes can be made through majority consent.

Historical Context and Current Arrangements

The current arrangements within Westminster-style parliaments are indeed rooted in history. The system, which originated with the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution, has evolved over centuries to shape the modern British Parliament and its equivalents around the world. These structures, with their established protocols and traditions, can often appear rigid and fixed, leading many to believe that they are unchangeable. However, this perception is not entirely accurate, as modern political practice has shown that change is possible.

Flexibility Through Majority Consent

One of the key features of the Westminster system is that, while the traditions and practices are deeply rooted, they are not decreed to be eternal. While the Basic Laws and fundamental norms are important, the system itself allows for changes through the democratic process. A simple majority in the House of Commons, for instance, can lead to significant changes in how the government operates and is held accountable. As such, if there is a consensus among the majority of the Members of Parliament (MPs), changes can be implemented with collective approval.

The Speaker’s Parade and Its Significance

The Speaker’s Parade, which is an annual event marking the start of a new parliamentary year, is often seen as a symbol of the ceremonial and formal elements of the Westminster system. It is designed to give the Speaker, often a respected politician, a sense of authority and legitimacy. However, this ceremonial role can sometimes hide the complex and often contentious behind-the-scenes decisions. For example, John Berkow, the last Speaker to wear a judicial wig before this tradition was abolished, was widely criticized for his arrogance, rudeness, and harshness towards his fellow MPs. This event serves as a reminder that the system is not merely ceremonial but also reflects the personal conduct and attitudes of individual MPs.

Concluding Thoughts

While the Westminster system is undoubtedly a well-established and traditional framework, it is not as inflexible as it may appear. Changes can be made through the democratic process, and traditions can evolve over time. The recent debates and events surrounding the Speaker's role underscore this point. As long as there is a majority willing to support change, the system can adapt to the needs of the time. Therefore, the rigidity of Westminster-style parliaments is more of a perception than a reality, and the future of these systems is not predetermined.