Why strong major parties matter in a Westminster democracy
Without real choice, voters are left choosing the least-worst option — and democracy suffers
Voters should have a choice between good and better, not bad and worse. That principle becomes harder to realise when the major parties in a Westminster democracy grow weak, indistinct, or too fractured to govern alone. When this happens, we drift from the clarity of choice that defines a healthy democracy into murkier waters where voter frustration thrives, coalitions wobble, and governments stall.
But to understand the importance of strong major parties, we need to first understand the system they operate in.
A brief history of the Westminster system
The Westminster system of government, named after the British Parliament at Westminster, has been exported around the world to former British colonies like Australia, Canada, and India. It is a parliamentary system where the executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) is drawn from the legislature and accountable to it. The key feature is responsible government: the idea that the government must maintain the confidence of the lower house (House of Commons or equivalent) to stay in power.
Historically, Westminster systems have encouraged the development of two dominant parties, usually one centre-right and one centre-left. These major parties compete for majority control of the lower house. The winner forms government; the loser becomes the official opposition. This binary not only provides voters with clear alternatives, it also creates a stable framework for government.
But when both major parties weaken — either through internal division, ideological drift, or voter disengagement — smaller parties and independents rise to fill the vacuum. That’s not inherently bad. Diversity in representation can lead to better debate and policy. But too much of a good thing, particularly in the lower house, can tip the balance away from function toward dysfunction.
The illusion of choice when major parties weaken
When voters don’t believe either major party is worth their vote, they start voting against rather than for something. Elections become exercises in choosing the least terrible option. Cynicism grows. Policy vision gives way to political survival. And in that environment, fringe voices, conspiracy theorists, and single-issue candidates thrive.
Strong major parties provide two competing visions for the future. They offer genuine ideological choice. They can also implement bold reform without being held hostage to a patchwork of minor partners with veto power — think Howard’s firearms ban and Whitlam’s universal health insurance in Australia, or Thatcher’s trade union reform and Blair’s introduction of the minimum wage in the UK.
It’s no coincidence some of the most effective periods of reform in Westminster democracies came during times of strong major party control and clear parliamentary majorities. But that’s not to say smaller parties don’t have an important role to play.
The role of the crossbench
A robust and diverse crossbench in the upper house is essential. It acts as a check on executive power, refines legislation, and gives voice to often underrepresented communities.
But balance is key. When the crossbench grows too large, especially in the lower house, it becomes increasingly difficult to form a majority government without entering into coalition agreements. That may sound cooperative in theory, but in practice it can lead to gridlock, watered-down policy, or unstable governments that collapse under internal contradictions.
European cautionary tales
Europe provides plenty of cautionary tales. Belgium famously went 589 days without a government after its 2010 election, as no party could command a majority and coalition negotiations dragged on endlessly. The Netherlands, too, has had protracted coalition talks (225 days in 2021) leading to political paralysis and public frustration.
In Italy, frequent elections and shifting coalitions have created chronic instability. Between 1946 and 2022, Italy had 69 different governments, an average tenure of just over one year each.
These are systems dominated by coalition governments, where no major party can stand alone. Every decision is a negotiation, every reform a compromise, and every election a potential crisis.
The sweet spot is strong majors held accountable through diversity
The Westminster model works best when two strong major parties dominate the lower house, providing clear alternatives and the ability to govern. The upper house, meanwhile, acts as the chamber of sober second thought, tempered by a thoughtful, effective crossbench.
This is the sweet spot: stability without stagnation, diversity without deadlock. Strong major parties keeping strongmen in check. A system where voters choose between competing visions of progress, not competing shades of decline.
To preserve that vision, major parties need to be more than electoral machines. They must reconnect with their centre left and centre right bases, rebuild trust, and offer bold, evidence-based policy. Only then will voters have a choice between good and better, not bad and worse.
Jonathan Meddings is an author and advocate from Melbourne, Australia.
