"If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN" The Australian example

"If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN" The Australian example undermines this claim. Australia is a true federation. Similar to the US, the constitutions of the six states predate the federation and remain in force. The federal constitution gives the federal gvt constrained powers (e.g. military, foreign affairs) with powers defaulting to the states (e.g. police, health). The country is broadly decentralised due to its constitution and geography. The federal parliament is a Westminster system - prime minister elected by members of the legislature, head of state that serves a largely symbolic role, distinct upper house designed as a house of review. The Australian settlement routinely produces stable government, workable majorities in parliament, is a true multi-party system, and has shown itself to be capable of big-picture reform. Admittedly, some of this is down to strong good microstructure. In particular, the preferential voting system. The Westminster system is also an strong fit for centralised countries, as seen in the UK and New Zealand. If there is one criticism of it, it is that it can be difficult to get enough of a gene pool together to form an effective executive when the population of house members is too small. Smaller Australian states often struggle to produce competent executives. There are similar problems in the almost-Westminster Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments. These problems are further compounded by proportional representation, which favours chest-thumpers (small parties) and political hacks (large parties), all of whom are very poorly suited to executive responsibilities.