Thirty-two years ago, history came to an end. It was the end of the cold war and Democracy, Francis Fukayama told us, had conclusively won over every other form of government; it was only a matter of time until it took over the world. In reality, things haven’t quite worked out like that, and even Fukuyama himself admits he may have been mistaken. The think tank Freedom House reports that now only 20% of the world’s population live in free countries, whereas the figure was 38% in 1997. Democracy is facing a crisis in popularity because it is not delivering security and a rise in living standards. It faces an existential threat from populism and totalitarianism, personified by Donald Trump.
However, in the UK, our political leaders still seem to be under the strange illusion that our democracy is fully realised. A month ago, Rishi Sunak solemnly stood outside 10 Downing Street and stated that we are “… the world’s most successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy” and we must resist all forces that threaten it. Really? This from the man who has overseen nonsensical and unnecessary ID laws to limit the voting franchise, and defied the rule of law over Rwanda.
Is democracy in the UK not what it seems?
Boris Johnson was ecstatically enthusiastic to tell everyone about the wonders of British democracy, at the very same time as undermining it. The Brexit rhetoric, “take back control”, implicitly referred to a bygone and mythical British democracy outside the EU. However, Johnson’s record is hardly a democratic one: he shut down Parliament, repeatedly defied the law, pushed through a form of Brexit nobody wanted, financially rewarded lovers and colleagues, and even gave his hairdresser an OBE.
We are told over and over again what an extraordinary democracy we live in, despite evidence to the contrary staring us in the face.
Democracy vs Aristocracy
Let’s take a moment to reflect on our system in the UK by reminding ourselves of the Greek root of democracy: Demos referring to people, in contrast to rule by the elite – Aristos.
Here lies a fundamental problem with our claim to be a straightforward democracy. Our Head of State is the Monarch and our second Chamber is an appointed House of Lords. If this isn’t an elitist system, I don’t know what is. Defenders of our idiosyncratic democracy may counter that the Monarch is purely ceremonial and does not influence policy. However, we know from painstaking investigative journalism, that the Monarch is shown legislation before it is published, and Charles III regularly writes spidery letters to ministers. Above all, the Monarch has confidential hour-long meetings with the Prime Minister in the Palace, which are very rarely referred to in our media.
No way of stopping a reckless first chamber
As the American founding fathers realised – and virtually everyone else setting up democratic government has understood since – a legitimate second chamber and a written constitution are essential. In contrast, our House of Lords does not have popular legitimacy, so it directly relies on the patronage of the Commons, meaning, in the end, it has no way of permanently stopping the Commons. We have seen this in the current Rwanda debacle and the previous Brexit tragedy. A legitimate second Chamber could resist the Commons if it went rogue.
Noam Chomsky claims that in reality, we invariably live in a very passive and obedient form of representative democracy, little better than a pale shadow of an active democracy. There is a huge power imbalance, and extremely limited chance for direct participation in the political process. In practice, inequality, austerity and poverty place severe barriers to real democracy and participation. This inevitably results in alienation from the political process and a sense of being unable to influence significant change.
Our democratic deficit matters
This article has only touched on a few issues regarding our democratic deficit. There are many more, including freedom of the media (social, broadcast and print); the endless cuts to local democracy resulting in bankrupt councils (what’s the point in voting for a council which has no money to make anything better?); restrictions to the right to peaceful demonstration; and the anti-democratic influence of autonomous zones with minimal legal limits, such as freeports, as articulated by Quinn Slobodian. Democracy in itself is an inconvenience to extreme capitalism, and has been bypassed in many innovative ways.
Democracy can work, but…
Despite all of the above, the good news is that there are myriad ways to strengthen democracy if we have the will. Essentially, people need to be able to see that democracy works and is worth voting for. As mentioned above, there needs to be a legitimate second Chamber with teeth, and a written Constitution. The franchise must be extended rather than restricted with confusing and exclusive ID laws (how can you arbitrarily require people to produce ID when there is no national compulsory ID document?), and the voting system should be more representative. Citizens assemblies have had some success in dealing with intractable situations and offer an alternative to top down politics. We may need a basic income in order to give people a stake in society so they believe in the potential of democracy.
If we accept that democracy is vital and is at threat, we need to think through all options to strengthen and extend it. It may seem indulgent to worry in the abstract about democracy amid day to day crises such as the cost of living, but in order to fundamentally reshape our broken society, we must start with our democracy. In reality, democracy is not something that can be achieved and then put to bed as Fukuyama implied 32 years ago. It needs to be constantly re-examined, updated and improved, so that it delivers for all of us.
