Does the UK suffer from a democratic deficit?

A democratic deficit occurs when government or government institutions fall short of fulfilling the principles of democracy in their practices, operation or where political representatives and institutions are discredited in the eyes of the public. In the UK there has been a discussion in recent years that Britain’s democracy is flawed. Politicians are held in low esteem, parliament seems outdated and the expenses scandal exposed just how many politicians had lost a duty to public office.

One of the main factors forwarded to argue there is a democratic deficit in the UK is the low levels of voter turnout and widespread disillusionment with the political system. In 2001 the UK received a general election turnout of 59.4%, which is extremely low. A greater number of voters voted against the Labour government than those that elected them. In 2010 it increased to just below 65%. This means that, low turnouts bring to question government legitimacy and the strength of its electoral mandate. Therefore, if citizens are having little influence in politics, democracy weakens as it is no longer really a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

On the other hand, defenders of the status quo claim that there is not a democratic deficit in the UK because citizens of this country, unlike many others, have their human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law. Evidence of this can be found in the 1998 Human Rights Act and 2010 Equality Act, as well as Britain’s continued membership of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition to this, reforms are taking place to develop our country so it is more democratic and fair, this is evident in Labour’s 1997 pledge to increase the use of referendums and even, David Cameron’s backing of e-petitions and increased devolution of powers to Scotland and the regions, as a result of the close verdict of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

With exception to the Scottish independence referendum (84.5%), turnouts for referendums have been historically poor, for instance the 2011 AV referendum got a turnout of just 42.2%.  Local referendums have often had lower turnouts; in Sunderland the referendum for a directly elected mayor (2001) had a turnout of 10%. As for e-petitions, Parliament’s Backbench Select Committee still retains the sole power to abandon or debate an issue that may have generated the 100,000 signature threshold gained online.

This shows that there has been a growing ‘democratic deficit’ in recent years, which has mainly been caused due to low political participation in voting and other political areas.

Would a change in the voting system enhance our democracy?

There are many changes that can be made to our voting system that could possibly enhance our democracy. For example, on Thursday 5th May 2011, a referendum was held to vote on the alternative voting system, as part of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement drawn up after the 2010 general election and was a nationwide vote. The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by the electorate.

On a turnout of 42.2 per cent, 68 per cent voted No and 32 per cent voted Yes. Ten of the 440 local counting areas recorded 'Yes' votes above 50 per cent; six in London, and those in Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin in Scotland. The campaign was described in retrospect by political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate"

Although this voting system was not put in place due to the majority vote being no, this change in the voting system would have enhanced our democracy more. The Alternative Vote (AV) is a preferential system where the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. Each voter has one vote, but rather than an X, they put a '1' by their first choice a '2' by their second choice, and so on, until they no longer wish to express any further preferences or run out of candidates. Candidates are elected outright if they gain more than half the votes as first preferences. If not, the candidate who lost (the one with least first preferences) is eliminated and their votes move to the second preference marked on the ballot papers. This process continues until one candidate has half of the votes and is elected. This system would enhance our democracy because due to the way the candidates are elected straight away if they receive more than half the votes, compared to the first past the post voting system where constitutional MP’s have to be elected to win a seat in the House of Commons. This is evident due to UKIP winning more than a third of the UK votes but ending up with only 1 seat overall.