首页> 外文期刊>Contemporary Family Therapy >Does Westminster (still) represent the Westminster model? An analysis of the changing nature of the UK’s political system
【24h】

Does Westminster (still) represent the Westminster model? An analysis of the changing nature of the UK’s political system

机译:威斯敏斯特(仍然)代表威斯敏斯特模型吗?对英国政治体系不断变化的性质的分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the first edition of his Patterns of Democracy (1999), Lijphart used the term ‘Westminster model’ ‘interchangeably with majoritarian model’. Despite both the constitutional reforms introduced since the change of government in 1997 and the outcome and consequences of the 2010 general election, Lijphart concluded in the second edition of his book (2012a) that ‘recent changes in British politics do not change the overall character of Britain as a prime example of majoritarian democracy.’ Lijphart’s perspective is challenged by this article—which also examines the effect of the 2015 general election on the nature of the Westminster system through the prism of Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy. It is argued that first, the Westminster system has never represented the majoritarian ideal; second, that it has noticeably moved towards greater consensus as a result of the various constitutional reforms introduced since the change of government in 1997 on the one hand and the outcome and consequences of the 2010 general election on the other; and third, that the 2015 general election has somehow stopped this general trend towards greater consensus.
机译:在第一版的《民主模式》(1999年)中,李菲特使用了“威斯敏斯特模式”和“与多数派模式可互换”的术语。尽管自1997年政府换届以来进行了宪法改革,也没有提出2010年大选的结果和后果,但李菲特在其书的第二版(2012a)中得出结论,“英国政治的近期变化不会改变英国政治的总体特征英国是多数民主制的主要代表。”这篇文章对Lijphart的观点提出了挑战-该文章还通过Lijphart的“民主模式”的棱镜考察了2015年大选对威斯敏斯特体系性质的影响。有人认为,首先,威斯敏斯特制度从未代表过多数派理想。其次,由于一方面是自1997年政府更迭以来进行的各种宪法改革,另一方面是2010年大选的结果和后果,因此,它显然已朝着更大的共识迈进;第三,2015年大选已以某种方式阻止了这种趋于达成更大共识的大趋势。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号