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 it, which would reduce the accuracy of the votes. Therefore, the implementation of compulsory voting is not a required measure and can only hinder the democratic system in the UK. In Australia, all citizens are required to vote. However, despite the success there, it does not justify introducing it into the UK. This could increase the amount of ‘rebels’ who would see fit to abstain from voting or simply choose to vote for a party without partaking in detailed research. Therefore, this is not a required measure, as all citizens should retain the right to not vote, and the introduction of compulsory voting would eradicate this.
In addition, the emergence of ‘New Labour’ has resulted in striking similarities between the policies of Labour and Conservatives. This has led to the current situation, as both parties are ideologically leaning towards the centre. This has resulted in a severe lack of choice for the citizens of the UK. This means that many potential voters will be unable to identify and relate to a particular party, and will therefore abstain from voting. This is therefore the reason, why prominent socialists or capitalists may feel that they would prefer not to vote. Also, the first by the post electoral system is outdated and in need of reform. The current system prevents the minority gaining an accurate representation within parliament. This means that often if a constituency is predominately Conservative, then a Labour supporter may be inclined to not vote as their vote will be essentially worthless. Also, the current voting system significantly reduces the chance of a rising party gaining power, due to the first by the post system. This means that we are left in a situation, where two parties are almost certain to be in power, regardless of the way votes are allocated.
Additionally, the UK’s representative democracy system is often seen as evidence, that the UK is not a completely democratic state. Ultimately, direct democracy in the UK would enable citizens to be involved in the decision-making process and ensure that the citizens and state are entwined. The presence of referendums would promote political interest, as people would be likely to vote, if they felt their votes would have a direct impact. This method of democracy is highly effective in Switzerland, where residents possess the ability to discuss and create policies. The presence of referendums would undeniably empower the citizens and promote trust in the government. However, referendums are impractical and reform of the current system may be the best solution. Nevertheless, the UK’s representative system appears to imply that politicians are the only ones informed enough to vote on policies, which affect the majority of the population. Therefore, reform may be required to enhance the democratic system in the UK. The current system promotes a sense of inequality between politicians and ordinary citizens. This is because the public no longer have the ability to be self-governing and are essentially stripped of their power when they elect their respective MP. For this reason, elements of direct democracy suggest it may be preferable to the current system.
However, some would argue that direct democracy is not a necessary reform and will only worsen the situation by sparking tyranny of the majority and even lowering voter turnout. The presence of ‘tyranny of the majority’ would decrease the levels of democracy in the UK, rather than increase it. Ultimately, this suggests that direct democracy is not the solution to the UK’s democratic problems, as it can lead to the occurrence of the ‘tyranny of the majority’
Moreover, the media influence over the public can be attributed to why there is a current democratic deficit. The media are famed for exposing and ousting MPs, and this can lead the public to believe that the majority of politicians if not all are corrupt and out to maximise their personal gain. If this is the case, then the media must take some of the blame for the need for democratic reform. Often the media glamorize controversial issues such as the expense scandal, which then reduces the level of voters. This would require reform, as the media should be encouraged not to be as blunt with politicians personal matters. However, they would argue that they are acting in the public’s best interests and simply trying to increase the public’s political awareness.
To conclude, it is almost certain that, the UK’s democratic system requires reform for an array of reasons. The current voting system is often a deterrent for voters and doesn’t accurately represent the views of the public, and an AV vote would be more suitable. Also, wider use of referendums have been proposed, however the sustainability of this is not clear, and for that reason direct democracy is not the solution, as it is more focused on short-term management of democracy. Also, this would run the risk of the introduction of ‘tyranny of the majority’ resulting in the minority being unable to exercise their democratic rights. Essentially, it is clear that reform is required, but it is tweaking which is required and not a overhaul, as this can only prove detrimental to the UK’s democratic system. Reforms are needed to increase the level of voters, as citizens are the key to enhancing democracy and the emergence of digital democracy may aid this. However, this also has it’s failings and may not be beneficial if the aim is to maintain the level of thought going into votes.
Junaid O’Balogun