The UK is often regarded as the archetype of Westminster democracy and as the empirical
antithesis of the power-sharing coalitions of Western Europe. Yet, in recent years a different
account has emerged that focuses on the subtler institutional dynamics which limit the
executive. It is to this body of scholarship that this article responds, locating the recent
chapter of coalition government within the wider context of the UK’s democratic evolution.
To do so, the article draws Lijphart’s two-dimensional typology of democracies, developing a
refined framework that enables systematic comparison over time. The article demonstrates
that between over the course of the 2010-15 Parliament, the UK underwent another period of
majoritarian modification, driven by factors including the long-term influence of the
constitutional forces unleashed under Labour and the short-term impact of coalition
management. The article makes several important contributions, salient in the UK and
beyond. Theoretically, it offers a critical rejoinder to debates regarding the relationship
between institutional design and democratic performance. Methodologically, it demonstrates
that the tools of large-scale comparison can be effectively scaled-down to facilitate withincase
analysis. Empirically, it provides a series of conclusions regarding the tenability of the
UK’s extant democratic architecture under the weight of pressures to which it continues to be
subject.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)