Parliamentary systems are interesting things to watch and research.
But, from a distance.
Mush less stable than the constitutionally divided representative system we have. More prone to wide swings in either the electorate or the ruling majority party or the personality leading that majority party. No confidence votes. Seemingly arbitrary calls for elections. Governor Generals. All very alien concepts for those not exposed to such things.
Imagine whoever the Speaker of the House is becoming the President after each election every two years and reshuffling a government who then has to go and receive audience from the President (who is a ceremonial figurehead appointed by the Queen of Someotherplacefaracrosstheocean) each and every time a vote doesn’t go in his/her favor.
Strange indeed....
It looks less stable than it is.
In terms of stability, since the Second World War, Australia has had thirteen Prime Ministers. The United States has had twelve Presidents. Not much difference there (and one of our thirteen Prime Ministers was a caretaker after the disappearance of Prime Minister Harold Holt, and only served until a replacement could be chosen). You have had eight occasions when the party holding the Presidency changed. We have had eight occasions when the party holding government changed.
No confidence votes.
They exist in theory, but in practice, no Australian Prime Minister has ever failed to win an explicit Motion of No Confidence. The House of Representatives did pass one on November 11 1975 at the height of the Dismissal Crisis, but it had already been dissolved by the time the motion reached the Governor General. They are, in practice, rare in most Westminster style Parliaments.
Seemingly arbitrary calls for elections. Governor Generals.
The Governor General is the primary reason the system is stable. An apolitical figure who is required to ensure that things like elections aren't arbitrary, but who will only grant one if satisfied of the circumstances.
All very alien concepts for those not exposed to such things.
Yes, but coming up with any system that works is historically pretty rare in this world.
Imagine whoever the Speaker of the House is becoming the President after each election every two years and reshuffling a government who then has to go and receive audience from the President (who is a ceremonial figurehead appointed by the Queen of Someotherplacefaracrosstheocean) each and every time a vote doesn’t go in his/her favor.
Well, first of all, they do not have to go to the Governor General every time a vote doesn't go in their favour - the Labor government lost a vote yesterday. It's not that uncommon (most of the time I wouldn't even know it had happened but the one yesterday was a little unusual so did get noticed). There have only been six occasions in Australian history where a Prime Minister lost a vote in the House of Representatives that was serious enough to require a visit to the Governor General, and the last of those was in 1931.
Secondly, the Queen is not the Queen of Someplaceovertheocean, but is the Queen of Australia. Yes, she's also the Queen of the United Kingdom, and another fourteen other realms, but if you are trying to understand the system, it is important to realise she rules separately in each of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. And while the Governor General has a lot of ceremonial duties, they also have some important real ones as well.
“All very alien concepts for those not exposed to such things”
Yes, I’ve always liked our system, but yet most democracies seem to go with the parlimentery system, even if they have sort of figure-head “presidents”, like for example Israel.
I mean, I can see it where you’ve got a monarch.
Does any other country use our 3 branches system?
I also don’t get why 49 of the 50 states have bicameral state legislatures. Nebraska has managed fine with just one house. I’ve always thought this, since like 6th grade. It’s just a bogus way to get jobs for pols.