To what extent does democracy in the UK need reform?

Authors Avatar

To what extent, does the UK democracy system require reform

To an extent, the nature of democracy in the UK is in need of reform, as the current political system lacks the desired democratic attributes. The democracy system can only be described as severely flawed, as the issues surrounding the electoral system, low voter-turn out and lack of representation are far too great to ignore the failings of the UK’s democratic deficit. A democratic state should ensure that power is derived from the citizens of the state, who are then able to elect their representatives. There are two contrasting types of democracy, direct democracy which ensures no separation between the state and its citizens and provides all citizens with a say in decision making, with referendums commonly used. There is also representative democracy, which ultimately sees the public elect a select few to act on their behalf.

Firstly, during the 2010 formation of the coalition government involving Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, the UK’s voter turn-out stood at a mere 65% despite the significance of the election. This highlighted the need for reform and the current deficit. The decline in voters is detrimental in the pursuit of a entirely democratic state. The below-par turn-out is largely down to the public’s lack of engagement and interest towards UK politics and politics in general. Often, politics is often seen as inaccessible to the poorer sectors of society and for that reason they generally feel no need to vote.

Also, the rigid nature of the UK’s voting system is often cited as a reason for the decline in democracy and reforms are key to enhancing it. The failure to adapt to the modern world is likely to have contributed to the current democratic deficit. An solution to this would be the implementation of digital democracy. This would enable the UK voters to cast their votes via text or internet. Nevertheless, postal voting was introduced in 2002 by Tony Blair’s Labour government but the impact has been minimal. Digital democracy would increase voter-turnout, as voting would become more convenient and accessible. However, this suggestion is not without it’s flaws, as the elderly are likely to be disadvantaged by digital democracy. They are unlikely to be up to date with the use of modern technology. This could potentially exclude members of society and end up increasing the democratic deficit. Moreover, critics would suggest that there must be a element of difficulty when it comes to voting, therefore digital democracy is not required. If there is a element of difficulty to voting, there is likely to be more caution applied by the public when it comes to voting. This would ensure that citizens were not simply voting for the sake of it, and the current system generally ensures that the public have put some thought into their decision. 

Join now!

Also, Compulsory voting is often promoted as the solution for this.. Benefits of this system is that it would obviously, increase participation Another argument for compulsory voting is that voting is a necessity as many have died for us to have the right to vote so it should essentially be compulsory. In addition, it would increase the legitimacy of government, as the amount of voters who elected them would have increased people. Nevertheless, some would argue that compulsory voting is undemocratic, as people should possess the right to abstain. This could then result in people voting for the sake of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay