Does Britain suffer from a democratic deficit

Does Britain suffer from a democratic deficit

In the previous blog posts a key issue/topic that always arises is the interesting question of 'how democratic is the UK', and although the nation is seen as a democracy, does the nation suffer from a so called 'democratic deficit'? A democratic deficit occurs when organisations or governments do not fully meet the principles of democracy.

To begin with there are many aspects which hint at a democratic deficit, one of which is the House of Lords. The British Parliament runs on a Bi-Comeral system, which consists of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, one contains elected officials, one does not. The House of Lords contains Life Peers, these are not democratically elected and although you can no longer inherit a seat, it is still undemocratic. It also leaves the Lords without legitimacy because the people did not decide on who takes up the role of said Lords. Yet on the other hand the House of Lords does have the job of scrutinising any piece of Legislation so that not a single House holds complete control. 

Linking to the ideas of our Parliament there are also many issues with the European Parliament, firstly the number of seats each EU member gets depends on the States population, this gives smaller smaller nations such as the Czech Republic less of a say in European affairs. Alternatively this is a positive aspect because a nation such as Germany (Which has the largest population in the EU) should have a greater say due to it containing the most amount of people. Yet once again on the other hand the EU Parliament can only amend laws, it cannot introduce any new piece of legislation. This is surly undemocratic because if an issue does arise the European Parliament is not given the power to put in place new legislation. The commissioners in the European Parliament can not be sacked from their positions, making it extremely difficult to remove inefficient commissioners, unlike the UK where you can put in place a vote of no confidence.  Additionally with Political Participation on the decline the number of people voting in EU elections are falling for example in 2009 the voter turnout for the EU elections was only 35.6% of people, this links to the idea that the population of the EU is confused with the idea of the European Parliament , to many it seems too distant from its citizens to make a large enough impact.The UK is also under 'Pooled Sovereignty' with the EU, this means that the UK shares it power with the EU, this could be somewhat seen as stealing the UK's full independence, yet on the other hand it is seen as a positive to share power between multiple entities, for example in the UK power isn't totally held in Westminster it is spread between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Another way in which the UK is suffering from a democratic deficit is the voting system formally known as 'First Past the Post'. This system is not a truly democratic way of selecting a leader, for example a party with only 39% of the vote can still take power as this may be the largest majority. It also encourages the use of tactical voting, and if people are not voting for there preferred parties then they're not exercising their democratic right.

Would a change in voting system improve democracy in the UK?

Would a change in voting system improve democracy in the UK?

The UK is seen as one of the most democratic nations in the modern world, however it is often argued that the UK's voting system does not allow for complete democracy. The UK uses the 'First Past the Post' system, this voting system is said to allow the winner to take all, this meaning that in most cases there is a clear majority winner at a constitutional and national level.

To begin with lets look at how the 'First Past the Post' system hinders complete democracy and fairness. One large downside of FPTP is the fact that the number of votes received in a General Election is not accurately reflected in the number of seats won in parliament. A very recent example of this occurring was in the 2015 General Election, UKIP gained 3,881,099 votes whereas the SNP gained 1,454,436. However despite these statistics clearly showing UKIP to be the victor of the two, it turned out that UKIP only got 1 seat in parliament whereas the SNP earned 50 seats. This basically voids many of the votes registered for UKIP, it in theory gave a lesser supported party greater power over those with a larger amount of support. Linked to these points under the 'First Past the Post' system smaller parties are left feeling unrepresented and weaker, for example some smaller parties might have national support yet do not gain many MPs because their supporters are wide spread and may not be concentrated in just one area/ constituency. Another disadvantage that challenges true democracies is the encouragement of tactical voting. For example people may decide it is not best to vote for their preferred party but instead vote for another , in order to stop a party from gaining power. This can often happen in elections and in parliament for example a labour supporter votes for the Liberal Democrats to stop the conservatives gaining a majority. One additional disadvantage is that which occurs in marginal constituencies (where voters change which party they side with election to election) the outcome of an election can be decided on the voting patterns in these situations, even although the constituents may number only a tiny proportion of the electorate.

However this system does have some advantages, extremist parties (such as hard-line communist and fascist parties) are unlikely to be elected as they would rarely gain enough votes in any one constituency. The time taken to calculate and work out the victor in an election is drastically reduced, the transfer of power from one party to the next is made very easy because of this. However with these points taken into consideration would a change in voting system really improve democracy. 

If the UK changed to a system similar to Proportional Representation it would make elections a lot more fair, mainly because this system addresses seats based on the number of votes a party gains. Smaller parties especially would benefit from this feature, yet this system does have its flaws in relation to smaller parties. Many voters would see this system as a chance to vote for their preferred party no matter the size, meaning that a lot of the time parliament would be filled with small parties making it impossible to make a majority decision. One example of this happening was in Weimar Germany in the 1920's due to the sheer number of small parties arguing amongst one another, a majority vote was difficult to secure. Democracy would be improved due to everyone having an equal chance at success however increased democracy can often lead to a reduced amount of efficiency.