To what extent do precedents in Westminster systems apply in other countries that use it?

Question

There is currently discussion in the UK about the possibility of a future Prime Minister proroguing Parliament in order to prevent it from frustrating their vision of Brexit. A big part of the discussion surrounds whether Her Majesty would accept a request from her Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament, or whether she would send him away and refuse.

A similar situation arose in Canada at the end of 2008, when the then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper was facing a vote of no-confidence in his minority government, which he looked certain to lose. He requested that Parliament be prorogued, and the then-Governor General agreed to this prorogation, thus avoiding this vote of no confidence.

To what extent, if any, would the precedent set by the Canadian Governor General apply to Her Majesty in the UK, or to Governors General in other Commonwealth realms, when their Prime Ministers make similar requests?

Answer 1

Such precedents are of interest, but are in no way binding. That follows from the constitutional principle of Parliamentary supremacy, which prevents Parliament from binding a future Parliament. That being the case, there's no way that a decision of Parliament, or the executive, in another country can be binding.

In the case at point, an attempt to prorogue the UK Parliament to prevent it reaching a decision on leaving the EU would be regarded by many people as outrageous, and would provoke an instant constitutional crisis.

Answer 2

There is no obligation on any country following the Westminister model to follow the precedents of other countries also having similar system. In fact, it would be an affront to a country's sovereignty if they were obligated to follow such precedents.

That becomes quite apparent when you consider how countries who have the Westminister model of parliamentary system themselves differ. For example, the original UK model that is still followed there doesn't have a constitution while other countries who have adopted it opted for a constitutional Parliamentary system.

On controversial democratic issues, politicians sometimes do try to argue that other democracies have a precedent of doing something in a particular manner and so there is nothing wrong in adopting it.

For example, some years back the Indian government run by PM Narendra Modi tried to amend the constitution to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) that would be responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of judges, officers and other employees in the legal services. The government argued with critics of the bill that this was modelled after the British Judicial Appointment Commission. This was even argued in the Supreme Court of India when the constitutional validity of the bill was challenged. The Supreme Court however disagreed with the government and struck down the NJAC Act as ‘unconstitutional and void’.

Another example, that succeeded, is the anti-defection bill in India that allows a party to propose the expulsion of an elected party member from the Parliament if they violate a whip. The whip system of the British that allows a UK political party to expel a member from the party (but not the Parliament) for going against a whip was often cited in the public to push the anti-defection law.

But countries with democratic spirits do tend to observe and learn from each others practice.

For example, in the UK the monarch's role is now treated more and more as a typical head of the state whereas before they played a more politically active role. The old UK laws give a lot of power to the monarch that has since been diluted by legally interpreting it more and more narrowly to mean that the powers are still bound under democratic terms and not absolute. Indian political parties have been considering reserving Parliamentary seats for women, inspired by Bangladesh where women reservation in Parliament has existed for sometime now.