Another negative point about the UK’s democratic system is that we allow everyone over the age of eighteen to vote regardless of intelligence or social status. If the average person has read the manifestos of all three major parties and has done research into their policies and potential improvements as a governmental body, and contrast his vote with that of a voter who has no real clue of any of the parties manifestos and is limited to “eeny meany miny mo” with the voting slip or only votes for a party mainly because he likes their leader, we can see that this system is not actually that great. Our average person’s well-researched vote has effectively been cancelled out by someone who has no clue regarding what he or she is doing. This is one of the major problems of our democratic system of government and it is very difficult to change without abandoning a fully democratic system and converting to a democracy of the educated classes.
Despite the amount of people who can vote, only a small number actually do. This low voter turnout is almost a threat to the UK’s democratic system as enthusiasm in the voting process is vital to sustain a good representative democracy.
Voter turnout is measured by the percentage of eligible voters who cast their vote in elections for various parts of government. Image from
Turnout peaks at 82% in 1950 - but the long-term trend in voter participation has been downwards. By 1983, turnout was down to 72% - and despite an improvement in participation in both 1987 and 1992 - the last two general elections has seen a large drop in turnout. The overall level of turnout across the United Kingdom collapsed from 71% in 1997 to 59.3% in 2001. It could be argued that the UK is not truly democratic as only 60% of the eligible population voted, if the remaining 40% of the eligible population had voted then the whole outcome of the election might have been dramatically different. To rectify this problem, the voting process needs to be as simple as possible to encourage more people to cast their vote.
One-way of expanding the participation of the voting process and therefore the whole of democracy; would be to create more whereby opportunities for the public to be a part of the decision making process. Such could be the greater use of public enquiries and referendums. Both would allow the public the ability to participate in the complete process of discussing an issue, but they would not guarantee that the public would have any say in the final decision made by government.
Democracy, of course does have its strengths, it acts as a 'safety valve' and it keeps those in authority in touch with the people that they represent. Effectively, a leader that does not perform as required by his people will be removed in a democratic system, whereas in any other system of government a leader can become too powerful.
Another positive of the UK’s democratic system is its electoral system which allows people to select who they would like to act on their behalf in the country’s assembly (the House of Commons). It also gives the people the opportunity to remove these individuals at the next election if they so wish. This method of election is known as “first past the post” which means the voters choose their MP by marking a cross on the ballot paper next to their name. However, by handing to their MP’s the right to participate in decision making within the Commons, the electorate is removing itself from the process of decision making. Though MP’s have constituency buildings where the people can voice an opinion on an issue, the electorate plays no part in decision making, which means that although an MP is supposed to “be the voice of the people” in actual fact they don’t as they themselves have the final choice in the decision making.
Although the UK’s Democracy has its problems, there is no better system; the only question that remains is how much democracy is required. A good example of “too much democracy” is the United States of America, the near perfect system of checks and balances where it is impossible for any one person to gain too much power. The American president, often referred to as the 'most powerful man in the world' can do little without the approval of the Senate. The result of this democratic constitution is that there is a certain amount of inefficiency. For example, after alcohol was banned in the United States in a post-war fervour, it took 14 years to get the resolution revoked, a demonstration of the checks and balances working to too greater effect.
1100 Words
