Elections in Westminster democracy

The politicians of third world countries like ours often talk about the Westminster model democracy and, accordingly, bring in the reference of Britain’s elections. The problem is that they either knowingly, quite consciously, try to create a misconception about the Westminster model, or they themselves do not understand it.

Whatever the case may be, Westminster democracy is not the rule of the majority alone. Laws and policies are not enacted there by force of party majority. There is always an effort to reflect public opinion in various conventional as well as non-conventional creative ways. Under this system, the loyalty of the members of parliament is first towards the voters of their constituencies, and then the party, and only after that to the leader of the party.

Should we so easily forget how Prime Minister Boris Johnson was fined by the police for having a party with his colleagues at the prime minister’s office during the Covid pandemic? In fact, it was not just restricted to a fine. As he failed to inform the parliament about the event, the parliament recommended a 90-day suspension against him. His party held the majority seats in the parliament that took such a decision. This party had the highest representation in the committee that recommended this unanimous decision.

In Westminster democracy it is inconceivable that a prime minister will remain in power after using Downing Street or his Chequers retreat for a party meeting, be it the parliamentary board or any committee meeting. There is no way that the taxpayers’ money or state funds can be used for any party’s or individual’s political purposes. Even the political party has to disclose its source of funds. There are legal compulsions to disclose the identity of a donor, even if the donation is just 500 pounds. The arrest of Scotland’s former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her husband is an example of what happens if there is any alleged discrepancies spotted.

Awami League’s general secretary Obaidul Quader raised the question of how elections were held in a Westminster democracy. It is difficult to believe that he does not know. When the election is declared there, the House of Commons is immediately dissolved and the members of parliament are no longer members of parliament. In that sense, the prime ministers and ministers are in the role of caretakers and are no longer elected representatives of the people. They have to relinquish almost all their benefits and facilities. Basically, before the election is announced, the prime minister gives the top civil servants the permission so that they can officially provide the shadow cabinet members and the opposition parties with all sorts of information pertaining to government work.

If the opposition asks for information on any topic, they are bound to provide them with that within the shortest possible time. There is the ‘purdah’ rule for civil servants then, so they cannot express any political views or assist the ministers in their campaigns.

Election-related laws are created through discussion and consensus, not unilaterally. Earlier prime ministers could hold early elections as perceived fit. But that provision has been withheld, by the law specifying the term of parliament.

If the prime minister loses in a vote of confidence, the person in the majority party who win’s confidence will then become prime minister. Or, based on dialogue and understanding amongst all parties, a decision will be taken in parliament and elections held. Has Article 70 of our constitution left any such scope for the accountability of the leadership? The objective of Article 70 is to consolidate the leader’s power even further, so could there be any other objective of those in power to insist on constitutionalism?

In the recent history of Britain’s Conservative Party, Boris Johnson had brought the party to power with the widest margin of votes, yet the parliament did not just stop at proving him guilty by means of a parliamentary investigation. He was prohibited from entering Westminster for 90 days on grounds of contempt of parliament. When his handful of blind supporters tried to block the parliamentary inquiry, they were castigated even by their own colleagues, above party considerations.

The main caretaker characteristic of Britain’s election time political government is respect towards the contenders, recognising their equal rights, controlled behavior of the politicians and the unbiased role of the administration and all institutions of the state. The purdah policy regarding the neutrality of the administration does not apply to government officials alone, but to all local government institutions, that is, councils and city councils as well.

In Britain the election commission does not have its own staff to conduct and count the votes. The staff of the various councils does this work and the chief executive or senior officials of the council act as returning officers. This policy applies to all institutions that receive state funding.  Appointments and promotions to these institutions do not depend on party affiliation, but on professional competence and qualifications. As a result, there is no scope of exerting party influence or control in the election. The private radio and TV channels also have to provide equal opportunity to all parties.

If our politicians could first come up with an honest answer as to which areas of Westminster democracy we can emulate, then perhaps we can think of adopting this model. Unfortunately, though we had proceeded quite far in that direction after the mass uprising of 1990, we have steadily regressed and reached such a state that even the followers of autocrat Ershad have the scope to smirk.

* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist

* This column, appearing in Prothom Alo print and online, has been rewritten in English by Ayesha Kabir