Back to the Westminster model? The Brexit process and the UK political system
| Author | Edoardo Bressanelli,Gianfranco Baldini,Emanuele Massetti |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512120967375 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120967375
International Political Science Review
2022, Vol. 43(3) 329 –344
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512120967375
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Back to the Westminster
model? The Brexit process
and the UK political system
Gianfranco Baldini*
University of Bologna, Italy
Edoardo Bressanelli*
Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Italy
Emanuele Massetti*
University of Trento, Italy
Abstract
This article investigates the impact of Brexit on the British political system. By critically engaging with the
conceptualisation of the Westminster model proposed by Arend Lijphart, it analyses the strains of Brexit
on three dimensions developed from from Lijphart’s framework: elections and the party system, executive–
legislative dynamics and the relationship between central and devolved administrations. Supplementing
quantitative indicators with an in-depth qualitative analysis, the article shows that the process of Brexit has
ultimately reaffirmed, with some important caveats, key features of the Westminster model: the resilience of
the two-party system, executive dominance over Parliament and the unitary character of the political system.
Inheriting a context marked by the progressive weakening of key majoritarian features of the political system, the
Brexit process has brought back some of the traditional executive power-hoarding dynamics. Yet, this prevailing
trend has created strains and resistances that keep the political process open to different developments.
Keywords
Brexit, majoritarian model, referendum, UK political system, Westminster model
Introduction: The strains of Brexit
This article aims to ascertain how the politics of the UK has been reshaped by Brexit and, more
tentatively, in which direction it is moving towards. While the Brexit process has shaken the politi-
cal system and unleashed contradictory dynamics, we argue that a move back towards the
*The authors would like to acknowledge their equal contribution to the article
Corresponding author:
Edoardo Bressanelli, Dirpolis Institute, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa,
56127, Italy.
Email: e.bressanelli@santannapisa.it
967375IPS0010.1177/0192512120967375International Political Science ReviewBaldini et al.
research-article2020
Special Issue: The Brexit Effect
330 International Political Science Review 43(3)
‘Westminster model’ has ultimately emerged. In so doing, this research places itself in continuity
with studies that have provided analytical assessments on the ongoing transformation of the UK
before the Brexit process started to unfold (e.g. Flinders, 2010; Matthews and Flinders, 2017). In
line with these studies, analytical categories developed in the classic comparative literature, such
as Arendt Lijphart’s Westminster model, are adopted as benchmarks in view of detecting longitu-
dinal change. While other scholarship explores the Brexit–constitution nexus (see Bogdanor,
2019), the analytical focus here is on the impact of the Brexit process on the UK political system,
in the period ranging from the Brexit referendum (June 2016) to exit day (January 2020).
The unsettling impact of Brexit has manifested itself in a series of rather unusual political occur-
rences: the alternation of three prime ministers (PMs) in 3 years; a highly volatile electoral market;
and harsh clashes between government and parliament as well as between the central and devolved
institutions, often leading to strong court involvement (including the Supreme Court) in the politi-
cal process. As Brexit promises to leave a significant imprint on British politics, this article takes a
close look at the trends that have surfaced at various points in time, looking especially at the party
system and at the various strains between different institutions.
Three dimensions of the UK political system are singled out as particularly exposed to the
potential effects of Brexit: the party system, executive–legislative dynamics, and the relation-
ship between the central and devolved administrations. How important was Brexit in reshaping
the party system? Has Parliament constrained government during the Brexit process? Has
Brexit shifted the constitutional balance between central and devolved administrations? Our
analysis shows that key features of the Westminster model – such as single-party majority gov-
ernment, executive dominance over Parliament and the unitary character of the state – have
been reinforced.
Yet, this conclusion needs to be qualified, as it is based on the analysis of a limited period. First,
important constitutional features of the UK political system that do not fit with the Westminster
model – for example, bicameralism, devolution and the Supreme Court – are still there. Secondly,
while the nexus between the two-party system, single-party government and cabinet dominance
can still count on its institutional pillar (i.e. the majoritarian electoral system), the behavioural pil-
lar (i.e. concentrated electoral preferences) has only partially recovered from the erosion of the
previous half century. In addition, the persistence of high volatility casts doubts on the future solid-
ity of this second pillar. Without indulging in difficult and sterile speculation on future develop-
ments, it is important to acknowledge that these consolidated transformations represent important
constraints on the push towards the Westminster model that has recently re-emerged with Brexit.
Analytical framework: Lijphart and beyond
In his seminal work on democracy, Lijphart classified countries on two dimensions: executive–
parties and federal–unitary (Lijphart, 1984; 1999). The first concerns the horizontal distribution
of power, and consists of five interconnected variables: party system (V1; two-party vs. multi-
party systems); type of cabinet (V2; single-party vs. multi-party coalition); executive–legislative
relations (V3; executive dominance vs. balanced relationship); type of electoral system (V4;
majoritarian vs. proportional); and type of interest group interaction (V5; pluralism vs. corporat-
ism). The second dimension refers to the vertical distribution of power and comprises five more
variables: relationship between central and territorial jurisdictions (V6; unitary vs. federal state);
type of parliament (V7; unicameral vs. bicameral); type of constitution (V8; flexible vs. rigid);
judicial review (V9; Parliament vs. Supreme Court as final arbiter on laws); and central bank
(V10; dependent vs. independent). In this classification, the conceptual categories are derived
from a basic dichotomy: majoritarian versus consensus democracies. Lijphart described the UK
To continue reading
Request your trial