Domestic Level Theories

Changing patterns of governance within national arenas have led to the application of new tools and concepts at the domestic level. Pre-governance concepts are increasingly being challenged to capture the degree to which the state can be described as hollow and, related to this, the extent to which substate and non-state actors have become more powerful. Although there are a number of different models of domestic governance, cutting-edge work in this area is best explored by looking at the Westminster Model and the pressure that has been brought to bear on it: The case of Britain illustrates that even the strongest and most centralized state formations have been confronted.

The Westminster Model has provided the dominant lens through which the organization of the British state has traditionally been viewed. Although it may have stopped short of being a fully fledged theory, the Westminster Model has nonetheless been influential in capturing key aspects of the British state and political system. As the dominant paradigm, it provided an organizing perspective, or at least a starting point, for the deliberations and researches of academics. On a more practical level, the Westminster Model also provided a framework for understanding for the politicians, policymakers, and organized interests working with and around the governing system. It also seeped into the consciousness of the broader public by framing expectations of politicians and political possibilities.

The Westminster Model was an analytical lens through which many shaped their understanding of British government and politics, but it also had a powerful normative dimension. That is, for many, the Westminster Model was a template for how government and politics should be organized and became a model that was emulated, imitated, and transferred elsewhere.

For governing elites in particular, the Westminster Model had a number of advantages. In particular, it was a relatively simple hierarchical model where the location of authority and responsibility was generally clear, and thus, accountability could be relatively easily applied. The starting point was a centralized state in which parliament was sovereign. Some described this as a unitary state; others, recognizing the component parts of the United Kingdom, preferred the term “union state.” The key point here is that state power resided largely in Westminster and Whitehall, the London locations of parliament and the civil service. Although Britain had a long history of local government, its powers were ascribed by the central state, and autonomy was closely monitored. For the most part, local government existed to deliver central government policies according to central priorities.

The first-past-the-post electoral system generally provided a clear majority for the governing party and, thus, a strong executive within parliament. In principle, this meant that a clear political steer guided a unified [Page 234]civil service. The British constitution was unwritten or, more properly, uncodified. There was a strong emphasis on established norms and past practice in guiding political conduct.

This governing system captured by the term Westminster Model emerged gradually over centuries rather than being the product of grand design. However, it was deeply embedded in British practice and consciousness and was perceived as successful by governing elites. Throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, Britain was a world power both economically and militarily, and its political system was seen as a key component of its success. Although the system always had undoubted weaknesses, the association of the political system with national success ensured its survival, at least in some respects, into the twenty-first century. However, developments in the second half of the twentieth century challenged the British system of government and politics and, thus, challenged the analytical lens through which it had generally been viewed.

...