Parties are also trying to encourage more participation within the party. They are currently trying to attract support from an increasingly diverse and distracted society. In 1997, New Labour capitalised on the number of women who were elected, establishing the impression that the party is ‘female friendly’. The Conservative party is also aiming to recruit more women and ethnic minority candidates in time for the upcoming general election in May 2005. It has also given higher platforms to those women already elected: Several years ago, Theresa May was appointed as party chairman. Not only by modernising themselves to represent current populations in Britain, parties also modernise themselves by generating new ideas for changing times. The labour party is the most famous for adapting its policies and ideology. Labour changed its name to ‘New Labour’ under the leadership of Tony Blair in 1997, to reflect these radical changes. At this time Labour chose to adapt its policies, and lose a lot of its socialist values. Under ‘Old Labour’ state ownership was held under high regard. But after Thatcher’s privatisation of state businesses, Labour acknowledged that it would be dangerous to radically reform businesses and bring them back under state ownership, thus they modernised their policies adapting them to the New Britain, by sticking to privatisation which had been warmly received. This promotes democracy, as policies are adapted to suit the electorate, rather than parties imposing unwanted, outdated ideologies upon its citizens.
However, it has also been argued that many aspects of political parties actually threaten democracy in the UK. Firstly, although the electoral system is indeed simple to understand, party choice is limited. Relatively few parties gain seats in the House of Commons, which leads to tactical voting among the electorate: Many people find that their favourite party has no chance of winning in their constituency, and so they cast a vote for the candidate they consider most likely to stop their least favourite party winning. This threatens democracy, as poll results consequently do not reflect voters’ actual preferences. Furthermore, although campaigns prior to elections increase awareness, much of this campaigning may actually mislead the electorate. For example, Labour’s previous 6-point manifesto mislead the public by presenting Labour’s policies too simplistically. It is very unlikely that all a party’s plans for government may be reduced to a simple 6 points; ergo it is likely that parties strategically leave out radical, delicate issues from their manifesto leaflets. This threatens democracy at polling time, as the electorate often votes for a party based on their manifesto, unaware of certain radical policies that they may actually object to. Again, this means that election results may not actually reflect party support.
Additionally, no matter how representative parties are made, democracy is still highly threatened as long as parties can be run by cabals who may control the party for narrow policy ends. We can accuse both Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative party, and Tony Blair of the current Labour government, of this type of dictatorial leadership. Both leaders often sidelined their respective cabinets, passing legislation to serve their own political interests, regardless of the rest of their party’s wishes. Margaret Thatcher did this with the introduction of poll tax, despite strong opposition both within cabinet and her party as a whole. Tony Blair did the same with his decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003, sidelining many in his cabinet, making the decision without their support and acknowledgment. This threatens democracy, as parties are often unable to carry out their policies for which they were supported at election time, as long as cabals are able to run parties to serve their own narrow political interests. Furthermore, although some parties have shown themselves to be adapting their policies, parties often water down these new ideas to fit their ideological framework. They often avoid radical policy change for the sake of political safety. This threatens democracy as it narrows the scope for proper political debate on key issues.
In conclusion, although it can be argued that political parties are indeed promoting democracy through several factors of their composition, it is evident that there is still much room for improvement. Perhaps stronger unity and communication between party leaders and members or even electoral reform could be the next step. Either way, it is clear that parties must re-evaluate their respective standards of democracy, and ensure that steps are taken to raise these levels, and thereby increase overall democracy in the UK.
