Westminster or Whatminster? Identifying the Forces Shaping Malaysia's and Australia's Architecture of Government

Abstract

The Australian and Malaysian architectures of government were founded in similar 'Western' Westminster traditions. Both systems incorporate 'standard' Westminster characteristics such as bicameralism, separation of powers, structured processes for making laws, and an executive body which forms the apex of decision making. The Australian and Malaysian systems also have 'Western' features such as a written constitution and a federal system. Many scholars have examined the country specific variances between Westminster-based governments (Patapan, Wanna & Weller, 2005; Lijphart, 1999; Payne, 1993). BUilding on this research, this paper compares the architecture of government in Australia and Malaysia and identifies the historical and cultural forces shaping each country's system. In Maiaysia, iegacies of traditional patron-client relationships and the kerajaan system have manifested in variances to the 'standard' Westminster characteristics, while in Australia neo-Iiberal values of individualism, democracy, and skepticism in government have propelled the architecture of Government in a different direction. The paper concludes by considering the regional cooperation implications of evolving architectures of government.