Editing Westminster system (section)

==Operation==
The pattern of executive functions within a Westminster system is quite complex. In essence, the [[Head of State|head of state]], usually a [[monarch]] or president, is a ceremonial figurehead who is the theoretical, nominal or {{Lang|la|[[de jure]]}} source of executive power within the system. In practice, such a figure does not actively exercise executive powers, even though executive authority is nominally exercised in their name.

The [[head of government]], usually called the [[prime minister]] or [[premier]], will ideally have the support of a majority in the responsible house, and must, in any case, be able to ensure the existence of no [[Majority|absolute majority]] against the government. If the parliament passes a [[motion of no confidence]], or refuses to pass an important [[Bill (law)|bill]] such as the [[budget]], then the government must either resign so that a different government can be appointed or seek a [[dissolution of parliament|parliamentary dissolution]] so that new general elections may be held in order to re-confirm or deny the government's mandate.

Executive authority within a Westminster system is de jure exercised by the cabinet as a whole, along with more junior [[minister (government)|minister]]s, however, in effect, the head of government dominates the executive as the head of government is ultimately the person from whom the [[head of state]] will take [[Advice (constitutional)|advice]] (by constitutional convention) on the exercise of [[executive power]], including the appointment and dismissal of cabinet members. This results in the situation where individual cabinet members in effect serve at the pleasure of the prime minister. Thus the cabinet is strongly subordinate to the prime minister as they can be replaced at any time, or can be moved ("demoted") to a different portfolio in a [[cabinet reshuffle]] for "underperforming".

In the United Kingdom, the sovereign theoretically holds executive authority, even though the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|prime minister]] and the [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|cabinet]] effectively implement executive powers. In a [[parliamentary republic]] like India, the [[President of India|president]] is the {{Lang|la|de jure}} executive, even though executive powers are essentially instituted by the [[Prime Minister of India|prime minister]] and the [[Indian Cabinet Ministers|Council of Ministers]]. In [[Israel]], however, executive power is vested {{Lang|la|de jure}} and {{Lang|la|de facto}} in the cabinet and the [[President of Israel|president]] is {{Lang|la|de jure}} and {{Lang|la|de facto}} a ceremonial figurehead.

As an example, the prime minister and cabinet (as the ''[[de facto]]'' executive body in the system) generally must seek the permission of the head of state when carrying out executive functions. If, for instance the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|British prime minister]] wished to [[dissolution of parliament|dissolve Parliament]] in order for a [[general election]] to take place, the prime minister is constitutionally bound to request permission from the [[British monarchy|sovereign]] in order to attain such a wish. However, the sovereign in modern times has virtually always followed the advice of their prime minister without their own agency, this owes to the fact that the British sovereign is a [[constitutional monarch]]; he or she abides by the advice of his or her ministers, except when executing [[reserve power]]s in times of crisis. The sovereign's power to appoint and dismiss governments, appoint cabinet [[Minister (government)|minister]]s to serve in the government, appoint [[diplomat]]s, declare [[war]], and to sign [[treaty|treaties]] (among other powers de jure held by the sovereign) is known as the [[royal prerogative]], which in modern times is exercised by the sovereign solely on the [[Advice (constitutional)|advice]] of the Prime Minister.

This custom also occurs in other countries are regions around the world using the Westminster System, as a legacy of [[British colonial rule]]. In [[Commonwealth realm]]s such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the day-to-day functions that would be exercised by the sovereign personally in the United Kingdom are instead exercised by the [[governor-general]]. In such nations, the prime minister is obligated to formally seek permission from the [[governor-general]] when implementing executive decisions, in a manner similar to the British system.

An analogous scenario also exists in [[republics in the Commonwealth of Nations]], such as [[India]] or [[Trinidad and Tobago]], where there is a president who functions similarly to a governor-general.

An unusual case lies in [[Prime Minister of Israel|Israel]] and [[Prime Minister of Japan|Japan]], where the respective prime ministers have the full legal power to implement executive decisions, and [[President of Israel|presidential (in Israel)]] or [[Emperor of Japan|imperial (in Japan)]] approval is not required; the prime ministers of these nations are fully the ''de jure'' source of executive authority, and not the head of state.

The head of state will often hold meetings with the head of government and cabinet, as a means of keeping abreast of governmental policy and as a means of advising, consulting and warning ministers in their actions. Such a practice takes place in the United Kingdom and India. In the UK, the sovereign holds confidential weekly meetings with the prime minister to discuss governmental policy and to offer his or her opinions and advice on issues of the day. In India, the prime minister is constitutionally bound to hold regular sessions with the president, in a similar manner to the aforementioned British practice. In essence, the head of state, as the theoretical executive authority, "reigns but does not rule". This phrase means that the head of state's role in government is generally ceremonial and as a result does not directly institute executive powers. The [[reserve powers]] of the head of state are sufficient to ensure compliance with some of their wishes. However, the extent of such powers varies from one country to another and is often a matter of controversy.

Such an executive arrangement first emerged in the United Kingdom. Historically, the [[British Sovereign|British sovereign]] held and directly exercised all executive authority. [[George I of Great Britain]] (reigned 1714 to 1727) was the first British monarch to delegate some executive powers to a prime minister and a cabinet of the ministers,{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}} largely because he was also the monarch of [[Hanover]] in Germany and did not speak English fluently. Over time, further arrangements continued to allow the execution of executive authority on the sovereign's behalf and more and more de facto power ended up lying in the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister's]] hands. Such a concept was reinforced in ''[[The English Constitution]]'' (1876) by [[Walter Bagehot]], who distinguished between the separate "dignified" and "efficient" functions of government. The sovereign should be a focal point for the [[nation]] ("dignified"), while the PM and cabinet actually undertook executive decisions ("efficient").<ref name="Bagehot-1867">{{cite book |last1=Bagehot |first1=Walter |title=The English Constitution |date=1876 |publisher=Chapman & Hall |location=London |edition=1st}}</ref>