Democracy is viewed by many people as a positive political system. Many also believe that Britain upholds our democracy. But what exactly is democracy? And is Britain really up to the high standards that democracy demands?
Democracy is most commonly seen as a government in which the people have the supreme power. This is usually applied through their elected agents, otherwise known as MPs, under a free electoral system. But this definition is vague and questionable, despite being highly praised with positive connotations. Indeed, it has been speculated that democracy is not bound to any one definition. This was pointed out by George Orwell, who was quoted as saying, “The defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”
It can even be argued that ‘democracy’ is just used in place of ‘free’ when describing a country’s status; countries which aren’t free are ‘undemocratic’, although ‘undemocratic’ is vague in itself as something which is undemocratic could simply be another political system. The question of whether these ‘undemocratic’ countries have a fair political system never comes into play. After all, how could it possibly be fair when it’s not democratic?
This stems from the idea that democracy is having a vote, not whether your vote makes a difference. In other words, an elected dictatorship. Walter Winchell agreed with this, saying, “too many people expect wonders from democracy, when the most wonderful thing of all is just having it”. If holding elections were what constituted a working democracy, then Britain would be just that. But this can be compared to China’s political system in which there are eight parties (other than the CPC) that you can vote for but, essentially, they all stand for the same points.
But if democracy is more about the freedom of the people and whether their vote matters at all in the long-run, then it can be argued that the UK is falling below the democratic standards with almost four in ten voters choosing to abstain as they feel they don’t have a say.
Democracies, in theory at least, should have parties which represent groups of people who stand for different ideas. At the moment, there exists only the three main parties; the Labour party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. If you were to vote for any of the smaller, more obscure parties, it’s highly likely that nothing will come of your vote.
We will forget for a moment what each of the leaders of these three parties say what they stand for and instead look at what they have actually stood for. The Liberal Democrats, during the 2010 elections, promised that they would scrap University fees across Britain. In fact, that was one of their biggest points on their manifesto. But they didn’t do that. They did the opposite and agreed with the Conservative policy of raising tuition fees. Another example would be the Conservative cuts to public spending. This is an expected Conservative move (they have done so on numerous occasions during past recessions, including the Wall Street Crash) but Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, stated, “We cannot make any commitments now that the next labour government will reverse rises or spending cuts.” Ed Miliband, leader for the Labour Party, agreed, saying the Labour government would continue to make cuts. Elections which lack any competing agenda are pointless.
Leading on from this is one of the biggest moves from the coalition government when they first came into power in 2010. They set up the Your Freedom website in the hopes that people would vote on controversial topics and hear what they wanted directly, rather than through their elected agents. But this proved to be useless as the public decided they wanted a review of the smoking ban and were ignored entirely. The Coalition stated they “had no plans” to review it.
If there is no real difference between the ideologies of the main political parties, no difference as to what party you vote for, can Britain really call itself a democracy?
The idea of a democracy is that it’s the people who determine what is going to happen in their country and all people within the country are equal in terms of electoral privilege. Sounds great, but… let’s look at Scotland, only one out of 59 constituencies had a Conservative party majority in the last general election, but we are still being ruled by a Tory government at the moment. I’d consider voting for any of the 3 major parties if just one of them had someone who’d not come from an overly privileged background (so they actually understood what it was like to be an average person in this country)/or a party that gave sincere promises they wouldn’t participate in foreign military activities… I’m now wondering whether to register a protest vote for the Green Party (despite the fact it’s not going to make political difference if I and everyone I know vote for them) or shall I just not bother? Even if I choose to vote for a more major party (pick the lesser of 2 or 3 evils) will they actually uphold their promises on the things I supported them for? The author of this article highlights the flaws of our ‘democratic’ system well.
Interesting comment. It’s an odd effect of our political system that even though a party has the majority of votes in terms of having more than rival parties, they still have the minority of votes in terms of the total given. For instance, if 100 people vote, and two parties get 20 and one gets 40, 60% of the population will want a different party to the one that actually wins.
Registering a protest vote may not do anything in terms of getting a new government in power, if enough people do it it can lead to a reevaluation of the system.
That’s a really good point about how distant Scotland is from the “elected” government. Especially as you can ask anyone in Scotland what they think of the Conservative party and their opinion will almost always be negative – yet here we are!
Baron Acton postulated that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Surely as it is only through democracy that people achieve legitimate power then surely only through democracy can it be said that someone, or indeed some group, legitimate corruption. Therefore should our current political parties and system not be lauded for their distancing from true democracy.
Well, no, because democracy is putting power in the hands of the people. The elected groups are IN power, but the power will still remain with the people. The political parties, when distancing themselves from democracy, take power away from the electorate, which is when the parties start to hold the power, therefore becoming corrupt.
Surely your article, however enlightening, stipulates that Britain isn’t in fact a true democracy and as such power doesn’t entirely reside with the people. Regardless if we regard Baron Acton’s quote then if as you say “power will still remain with the people.” surely then it is people(electorate) that are corrupt.
Power will remain with the people when there is a democracy. But there isn’t, so the power is currently resting with the parties.
Great article, really gets you thinking.
I don’t know much about politics but I managed to read the whole thing which is rare for me when it comes to such like politics.
Haha, thank you!
There should really be a new party for a new age. The parties in power stand for old outdated ideas in many cases and are often out of touch with the new generation and the new tools they possess. All these acts like CISPA, ACTA, etc show that the government doesn’t understand how this generation acts. They want to scan emails for certain key words for example. If this was applied to actual written letters it would never pass but they feel that digital information is somehow different. A good example of a new age political party might be the Pirate party which is spreading across Europe. More parties and more choice is needed. Also proportional representation maybe?
The only real way to get a truly democratic parliament is to randomly select its members like jury service. There would be no vested interest in retaining power.
An excellent idea, John. Random choice of those who govern us would quite literally be the most pure form of representative democracy. Unfortunately, it would create a problem with exactly what sort of policy would be followed and how a ‘government’ is chosen, which after all, has to come from those represented in Parliament.
I think that a system as suggested by yourself would best be adopted for a second chamber replacing the house of Lords, but those chosen, would have to be representatives for maybe say a ten year term, otherwise why would anyone abandon their chosen career even if it was paid and came with a pension (as does serving, I believe, two terms of Parliament)?
The Commons is best represented by a strict proportional system of one seat per 100,000 voters (about 460 top up seats) and an additional 200 seats per 230,000 voters for first past the post. By this method I’d estimate the Tories would still get around 268 seats but would have to govern with another party. It would still allow a situation like under Blair’s first election, for a party to govern with a majority but still allow proportional repepresentative government.
In addition to this mini critique, the fact that people adhere to such a nonsense system is beyond belief! There are 3 political parties that are meant to stand for 62 million people… that means 62 million people can be divided into three different mindsets which is an obscure manufactured way of governing as it is. Moreover, theorists over the years have come up with more than three different ways of governing in which all deserve far more attention than the preverbal bullshit that comes with the current, supposed, choice! Also considering that the major institutions that uphold law in this country are unelected bodies speaks for its self. Not to mention that the economy is essentially run by self elected rich corporations, disrupted by offshore banking and offshore production, central banking ‘scandals’ and the ongoing fact that neoliberalism is going to continue to undemocratically suck every country dry of their resources whilst in return creating a reproducing working class . A democracy… Man under capitalism is never good enough for such a concept
What has happened in the UK is quite simple. The Americanisation of the economy and politics. In short, the wealthy and big corporations pay little or no tax, the Middle class get decent salaries and a future AS LONG AS THEYREMAIN DOCILE AND SUBSERVIENT TO THE WEALTHY ABOVE THEM, and constant low wage jobs for those at the bottom, with the promise of ‘one day you’ll be a billionaire, so why worry about low wage jobs now?!’
Also, in the last 25 years or so, any real dissent has been carefully but firmly ironed out of politics, the media, business and many other spheres by keeping working class people, ethnic minorities and anyone else who might say something ‘not on the agenda’ out, so politics, media and many other spheres of activity are top heavy with white Middle class men mostly from London and the SE, with the occasional token black, Working class person or woman to keep the liberals quiet.
This is reality now. Anyone disagree with that? Just look at the leaders of all of the main parties. It is business as usual. The rich get richer and the rest of us are meant to have a rictus grin on our face and be deliriously happy because the rich get richer.
Britain a democracy? Hereditary head of state: appointed second chamber: disgracefully unfair and distorted electoral system both nationally and ( in England).locally.The only remotely democratic institutions are The Scottish Parliament, Welsh and N.Irish assembelies and the Greater London Authority! This is a mockery of a democracy, especially in the area with 80% of the population- England!