Search

This article analyzes what the Westminster system actually means for civil services in historical context and contemporary practice. It explores the way in which practitioners, both politicians and civil servants, interpreted Westminster's implications and used them as justification, defense, and sometimes camouflage for their administrative choices in a range of jurisdictions. The article then uses the example of senior appointments to show why these nuanced interpretations are significant. Its principal finding is that the continued value of Westminster lies in its ability to provide a framework and discourse without being prescriptive or precise for particular circumstances. It is sufficiently flexible to be able to evolve with the needs of each generation yet continues to frame a sense of identity and purpose in how it is applied in abstract and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prime ministers often have to work with prime ministerial aspirants, senior ministers who regard themselves as possible successors. But can these challengers seize the job when the prime ministers are reluctant to stand down? Using evidence from Canada, Britain and Australia, the article explores the conditions in which successions have taken place and the capacity of the prime ministerial aspirants to expedite the process. It identifies three alternative strategies that are shaped by the party rules in the different countries. The aspirants may flee, fight or fulminate. Which strategy will best improve their chances of winning the top job depends on the traditional or developing modes of leadership election that their parties have adopted. Some processes provide the means to assassinate the leader. Others have no opportunity to act; rivals can do nothing but wait, either in or outside parliament. The article finds that the broader the constituency that elects the leaders, the more secure those leaders are when their reputation declines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]