Evaluate the view that UK Democracy is in urgent need of reform

 One cannot consider our democracy without discussing it in terms of Parliament, representation and elections. It is these factors that need to be evaluated in order for us to conclude whether it is in dire need of reform. I will argue that factors such as the reality of having an unelected upper house, a widespread lack of scrutiny of the executive, the tyranny of the majority that can result under our system which is worsened by the First Past the Post voting system all contribute to a problem, which constitutes a crisis of democracy in the UK. 

In recent years there has been increasing concern about the state of Uk democracy, particularly after a period of low turnouts and cynicism towards politicians. after assessing three important area of concern…. It will be argued that UK democracy is in need of urgent reform. By urgent, it is meant that without these reforms, UK democracy will further deteriorate. 

The most significant problems with UK democracy are the lack of scrutiny of government and the executive as a whole because of its dominance in the political system and the unelected house of Lords. The executive in the UK normally has a majority in the commons and can exercise its power with few constraints. This is because the executive has very few constitutional constraints and it can end up resembling an elective dictatorship. Historically, the executive normally had super majorities such as Blair in 1997 and Thatcher in 79: Blair was only defeated in 4 bills within 10 years. Boris Johnson has not lost a single vote since a majority of 80 was won in 2019. The same applies to the house of Lords, which is unelected and so a portion of the legislature cannot hold the government to account. This is because they must give way to the Commons and conventions like the Salisbury convention means that they don’t object to any legislation that was already in the manifesto which the MPs were elected upon. This is because the PM has the prerogative powers to appoint whomever they want, and this is not limited by statute law.

However, it is often inaccurately argued that the executive has a mandate to dominate Parliament as they were elected during a General Election. The Prime Minister is head of the party, and the Cabinet is composed of party MPs who were also democratically elected. As a result, you could argue that the executive exercising power without many constitutional restraints is not an issue in our democracy. For example, the Conservatives won 43.6% of the popular vote in 2019 – the highest percentage for any party since 1979, and thus it makes little difference whether the legislature or Executive have more power, as both are dominated by the party which won the election. Further, though the House of Lords is unelected, it ultimately gives way to Parliamentary sovereignty and is useful for the expertise and experience that many Peers have in policy-making and specific niches, which may lack in MPs and party officials. It can be a useful check for bills in terms of being an extra source of scrutiny. The House of Lords, for instance, could delay the passing of the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, which gives more time for media and governmental scrutiny for rushed or reactionary legislation. 

However, although the executive does have a democratic mandate, it is clear that they do dominate the political system to the degree that they can act without many restrictions, and this is not good for the effective functioning of democracy. 

Another significant problem with UK Democracy are the failures of First Past the Post to efficiently and fairly represent the voters. First Past the Post, due to its “winner-takes-all" nature, inevitably leads to a two-party system in the majority of constituencies. For instance, in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport the Labour candidate Luke Pollard achieved 25,461 votes, and Rebecca Smith, the Conservative candidate, received 20,704 votes. In England, therefore, it is clear to see that most votes go to either Labour of the Conservatives, and this excludes parties such as the Brexit Party which come in a distant third. The losing party of the two-horse race has its voters left completely unrepresented in that constituency, and all of the third-party voters are left without any impact on democratic decision making. This effect can sometimes be exacerbated when voting is extremely split, such as in 2010, when Labour candidate Glenda Jackson won her seat in Hampstead and Kilburn with only 32.8% of the vote. Moreover, the ‘winners bonus’ often creates "false majorities" by over-representing larger parties (giving a majority of the parliamentary/legislative seats to a party that did not receive a majority of the votes) while under-representing smaller ones. The presence of tactical voting can also obscure these facts. The voting system desperately needs reform to truly represent the voters.

Nonetheless, some make the less substantiated argument that there are certainly positives to the system of First Past the Post for democratic representation and participation such as the strong constituency link. When one has an issue to raise in their constituency, they can easily contact their MP who has a direct local link to the area and will have background knowledge to solve or address the problem. This is illustrated by Johnny Mercer defending a constituent who was being prosecuted for the killing of a disabled man in Ireland during the troubles and fighting for veteran’s rights as a national policy. MPs are further held directly accountable to their voters due to the constituency link, and there is the potential for recall of the MP and a by-election in extreme circumstances. It is also arguably an oversimplification to label the two-party system undemocratic, as in 2019 the Conservative Party deserved a massive majority as a result of receiving the biggest vote share of a single party since 1979. 

Ultimately, though, the Conservative vote share was only 43.6%, which is not even a majority of voters. It is clear to see that elections under First Past the Post give false majorities and even supermajorities to parties, which exacerbates the negative effect of ‘electoral dictatorships’ through Parliamentary sovereignty, which urgently needs to be addressed.

Additionally, democracy desperately needs to be reformed in the UK due to the participation crisis, exemplified by less-than-optimal turnouts in General Elections but also dire levels of democratic participation on a local level. The turnout of 69.1% in the 2017 General Election fell slightly to 67.5% in 2019 in the UK. For local elections turnout can vary ward-by-ward, but in Marfleet, Hull, turnout was just 12.7% of eligible voters casting their ballot. This lack of engagement in the political process locally can lead to a self-perpetuating cycle of disinterest, as there is no canvassing or leaflets as parties just don’t focus on the ward, which is also in one of the most deprived areas in the UK. Another potential reason for disenfranchisement is the perceived lack of real voter choice. One often feels logically pressured to vote for the party which is the “lesser of two evils”, in other words the party closest to their ideology but not their ideal choice, if the party they truly support does not stand a chance of winning. In 2019, for instance, Nigel Farage stood down his Brexit Party candidates in many swing seats, making the trade-off of limiting voter choice but preventing Jeremy Corbyn from keeping many seats for Labour. This wasn’t fully effective, as shown in the Hartlepool constituency whereby the Brexit Party candidate achieved enough of the vote (26%) to prevent the Conservative candidate, Stefan Houghton, from gaining the seat. 

Conversely, some point out that the United Kingdom is not an anomaly in terms of Europe for its turnout in Parliamentary elections. It has turnout higher than countries like Greece, Latvia and Bulgaria, and falls about midway in a ranked comparison. In addition, despite a perceived lack of engagement with elections, the UK Labour Party’s membership is the highest membership of any party in the entirety of Europe at around 500,000. Membership of single-issue pressure groups, such as Greenpeace or the CND remains relatively high, which one could argue signals widespread political participation. In a way, this negates the need for MPs to represent constituents on issues like climate change, as they have another method of making their voice heard. They could simply involve themselves in the organization of a protest by protest or attending meetings. However, when one views political issues in the UK as a whole that aren’t designated to a major pressure group in particular, the picture changes. Thus, pressure groups are limited in representing the views of the people in place of elections.

It is clear to see, therefore, that elections are at the core of democracies and so without adequate turnouts, there is a real problem with UK democracy. The sovereignty of Parliament means that, without engaged voters, policies can be passed that aren’t truly in line with the will of the people and popular opinion until the next General Election, meaning we indeed need to reform our democracy.

In conclusion, it is clear that UK democracy is in urgent need of reform. The participation crisis, as well as a two-party system naturally facilitated by First Past the Post all inevitably leads to a sovereign Parliament that isn’t fully representative of the people and often creates an ‘elective dictatorship’ as exemplified by the contemporary dominance of the Conservatives since 2019.

George Teague