To what extent would you regard the UK system as truly democratic?

by anham (student)

C) To what extent would you regard the UK system as being truly democratic? (25 marks)

Democracy is a general description of a political system that is organised on the basis that government should serve the interests of the people. It is expected that citizens should also influence decisions or make decisions themselves as well as this; the government should be accountable under a democratic society. The UK is regarded as beholding democracy however current trends suggest increasing political apathy have begun to question whether the UK political system is truly democratic.

The UK is regarded as being highly democratic in that all elections are free from bias and interference. This means that all adults can vote without difficulty in a secret ballot, truly expressing their own opinions. However, the First Past the Post electoral system somewhat undermines the belief of free and fair elections in that smaller parties are subject to the tyranny of the majority, thus have no realistic chance of winning. There is only one representative of each constituency to express the ideologies of all constituents. This means that the constituents are underrepresented. For example, in the 2005 general election, MP of Chelmsford, Simon Burns gained 44.9% of the vote. This shows that the majority of the constituency, 55.1% of Chelmsfordians, did not wish for the Conservative to be their MP. However, the fact that such a large proportion of the electorate vote for Burns consistently, year- on-year means that other political parties don’t stand a chance, not Labour for example – let alone other smaller parties such as UKIP. This therefore undermines the principle of the free “choice” we have of political parties. Chelmsfordians here don’t have a choice, they are subject to the tyranny of the majority, they don’t have the ability to choose freely an MP to represent them, and the only chance they stand of expressing their views is through “tactical voting”. This is not democratic but unjust to those that oppose the party in office, thus; to what extent therefore do we truly have a choice in elections? We’re in that sense, not truly democratic. This is the effect of pluralist democracy, a “majority” as such is not achieved, just more votes than the opposition.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

In regards to representation issues that lead questions to arise on the democraticness of the UK political system. The MP representatives don’t socially represent the nation as a whole, for example, only 22% of MPs in the House of Commons are women and just 21% in the House of Lords. This in contrast to the 51% population of women shows just how underrepresented the system leads to be. As well as this only half the percentage of MPs are of ethnic minority, as the percentage of ethnic minorities within the British population. Therefore it shows that those in power’s interests are likely not be directly proportional to the civil liberties thus questioning the democratic state of Britain. If equality is not subjected, women and minorities are likely to be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Therefore does it matter that MPs are elected democratically if they are not representing democratically? The interests of everyone are not vocated and not often the tyranny of the majority overrules; this means that democracy is proving to not be so truly democratic.

However despite having a Parliament that the majority has not voted in, the British political system has its democratic strengths in that the executive is held to account by the legislature. This means that the opposition have the freedom of speech to criticize the actions of the party in office, thus leading to increased political awareness of the effectiveness of the party in power. This is democratic in that everybody gets an opportunity to vocate their political ideologies. The criticism also opens up the encouraged competition between political parties for the electorates votes. This means that despite not very democratically, but more for practical purposes - not having the ability to vote off a poor party in power, it means that in the next election, their chances of remaining in office are minimal. This therefore encourages parties to stick by the principles of their manifesto, those that have won them votes. The UK is not democratic in that the party that is in government does not have any legal obligations to legislate the popular policies of their manifesto programme, however the fact that the executive is held to account by legislature means that any unjust, thus undemocratic behaviour is publicised. For example, the Liberal Democrat’s main vote winner was the policy of not increasing the university fees, the fact that Nick Clegg then agreed to the decision of tripling university, has detrimental effects on his party. The electorate that voted for the Liberal Democrats on that basis are now informed, free press publicises immoralities thus resulting in them becoming unlikely to remaining in office over the next term. This gives the electorate the chance to convey their disapproval, the fact that this may only occur once every five years is not truly democratic but more feasible and realistic for a strong Parliament.

Since the 1929 women have been able to vote on equal terms with men, this is democratic in that on polling day, parliamentary sovereignty returns to the citizens of the UK. However, to vote one has to be of the age of 18. This is deemed to not be truly democratic to the 16/17 year olds that have left home, pay tax and have the ability to join the army. Government decisions still affect these citizens, such as the tripling of university fees. This had a direct impact on the lives of most 16/17 year olds and is something that has the possibility of shaping their future career paths. However the fact they can’t vote is not democratic at all, they are being denied of their civil liberties.

The UK is not also truly democratic in that both the head of state and the second chamber are unelected. The Queen holds her position based on hereditary gains not by her own merit but by the rights passed onto her family through birth. The idealistically most powerful person in this country therefore is not placed by the wish of the people, but by chance. This is not democratic at all and if the Queen refused to sign a law or agree with the bills passed by Parliament, it is unclear of the possible consequences. As well as this, the Prime Minster is not elected, but simply chosen by the party in office. This argument is indeed flawed however in that when the electorate cast their vote, they are more likely to base their vote on the party as opposed to the chosen party member chosen to stand for local election. Though, with the case of Gordon Brown in June 2007, the country never gave approval of the new PM once Tony Blair stepped down. This was politics outside of the control of their hands, thus undemocratic. There is no point in the main principle of democracy; government by consent, when the leader of the government is not given consent by the people. This is a flaw in the UK political system that closes the door on democratic principles. Though the electorate do have the opportunity to indirectly veto, through not voting for the party next election time.

The fundamental issue is that the UK is proving to be less democratic by the day. Ever since the pre-war period, voting turnout to elections has dropped from the high 80% down to halfway mark in some cases (in the past decade). How democratic therefore is the system that we have if so few people are choosing government? Especially considering we have a plurality system in the UK, not majority, this means that it is most likely as current trends suggest, that more than 50% of votes went to other parties than the one in power. The country therefore is being governed by a political party only the minority desire. The FPTP system is perhaps therefore, the biggest flaw in UK democracy, as it means that the minorities are subject to the tyranny of the majority. This means we don’t truly have much choice in political parties, consensus politics means that the three main parties are becoming increasingly similar. We are left with very little choice but to vote tactically therefore, not for the party we truly want in power, but for a party that is better than the one that is most similar to your main parties’ ideologies. The current political system encourages political apathy in this respect, as it turns voters off by limiting their so called “freedom of choice”. Many voters see the parties they wish to be in office too small, therefore deem it futile to engage in political participation and vote. Therefore I believe that the UK only appears to be democratic on the surface, the traditions of democracy are now being de-rooted for a new revolution in the tyranny of the majority, overruled by consensus politics. The adversary, differentiating political days are past which encouraged political participation are being trampled upon and pluralist voting only encourages this in that 50%+ does not have to be reached. There is not a major approval therefore of the party in office, this coupled with underrepresentation means the UK is no longer truly a democratic society in that yes we are apparently given the freedom of choice in political parties, but the choice is limited in which party can realistically win.