To what extent is there a democratic deficit in the UK?

The decline in participation creates a democratic deficit as it shows that only a select number of people are voting, and the views of the whole of the UK is not being represented in Parliament. The people who do not vote as much are those in a disadvantaged situation – the poor, or the homeless, which is a large part of the UK’s political voice not being heard.

However, in the recent Scottish Independence referendum, the turnout was 85%. This suggests that if the purpose of the vote is important enough, then the electorate will definitely participate.

Also, the turnout levels across the west have dropped to about 66%, which is very close to our own election in 2011. This is probably because people don’t care about the wider society as much as they did a decade ago – they have their own lives to be getting on with, and are individualistic, and more concerned about their family and friends than the political state of the UK.

People also argue that there is little political education. Schools fail to provide basic political knowledge until A Level, and even then not all students opt to choose it. After compulsory education, there are little government-funded, non-biased campaigns – why would the government publish material that goes against them? Because of the lack of political education, this contributes to the participation crisis, which, in turn, contributes to the democratic deficit. However, if the public wished to know more about the political parties and the UK’s political system, all the information is freely available and accessible on the internet.

There is also an argument that there are unelected institutions in politics. Indeed, the House of Lords is unelected – it is a select group of key members of society – doctors, scientists and other notable figures. It is not a democratic group, as the public doesn’t have a say in who is in the House of Lords. However, the House of Lords does not exert a huge influence on the current politics, and has recently had a lot of its powers stripped, and works with the House of Commons, which is a democratically elected body.

Another argument is that the First Past the Post (FPtP) voting system is unfair. FPtP is where the UK is divided up into constituencies, and then the constituents within them vote for an MP to sit in the House of Commons.  This is considered undemocratic because a government can win an election without gaining a majority of the votes, and the basis of a democracy is that the majority is represented! However, this system allows MPs to represent the interests of their local area, which would be overlooked in other voting systems. A counter argument to this, however, is that MPs are restricted by their own parties. This is only a small point, though.

However, FPtP produces strong governments that can make strong decisions that a party without a majority couldn’t, meaning that the UK is able to have drastic changes made for the good of itself in a few days, which would have taken years in another system

In conclusion, I believe that the UK is not suffering a democratic deficit – it has its problems, yes, but what country doesn’t? While FPtP is considered inequitable, there was a referendum to introduce a different system in 2011, and the outcome was a ‘No’. And elections are, all in all, free and fair – the public’s voice is heard, be it through general elections, referendums or even pressure groups.