Democracy: The Worst Form of Government (Apart From All the Others We've Tried and Hated)
In 1947, Winston Churchill stood up in the House of Commons and delivered one of his most backhanded compliments in political history:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms."
Translation: It's awful — but hey, at least it's not fascism.
Churchill knew that, messy as it is, democracy at least has the decency to root power in the people. Well… sort of. In theory, it's the people who hold the government accountable — by electing politicians, watching them break their promises, and then re-electing them anyway. This consent of the governed is what supposedly makes democratic governments legitimate. The public then obeys laws because they reflect "the will of the people" (or at least the will of the 35% who turned up to vote).
Autocracies, of course, skip the whole messy asking permission part. In those systems, one person or a cosy elite decides everything, usually with the help of an army, a secret police, and a suspiciously well-fed statue of the leader in every square. No "consent", just "do it or else".
Britain likes to think it invented democracy — tracing it back to the Magna Carta of 1215, and, if we're feeling especially smug, to the Anglo-Saxons. The USA chips in with Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address, where he pitched the catchy slogan "government of the people, by the people, for the people" — which sounds lovely until you remember half the people couldn't vote at the time.
Representative Democracy: Let Us Handle It, You're Busy
The UK runs on representative democracy. You vote for an MP to make decisions on your behalf, freeing you up for more important things like binge-watching Netflix or complaining about MPs. They're professional politicians, which means they've spent years learning how to say nothing very convincingly.
Voters supposedly "retain sovereignty" because every few years they get to decide whether to keep their MP. And while MPs are meant to represent all constituents, they also have to juggle party manifestos, personal judgement, lobbyists, and occasionally lucrative side gigs. The result: a delicate balancing act between "what you want" and "what keeps me in power".
Advantages
-
Professionalism: They (allegedly) know more about politics than you do.
-
Checks & balances: They consider the needs of minorities, which is why Parliament spends hours debating fox hunting bans.
-
Accountability: If they do a bad job, you can vote them out. And if they do a good job, you can vote them out anyway.
Disadvantages
-
Many MPs seem to represent the London "bubble" rather than the country at large.
-
Side jobs can be… distracting. Owen Paterson resigned in 2021 after being caught doing paid lobbying. Geoffrey Cox made £900,000 as a barrister while still claiming his MP salary — proving multitasking is possible if the second task is incredibly profitable.
-
The House of Lords is unelected. Think of it as Britain's VIP lounge for the politically connected.
-
The electoral system (First Past the Post) makes it very difficult for smaller parties to get seats, but very easy for them to get ignored.
Direct Democracy: Let's Ask the Public… What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
Direct democracy lets everyone vote on everything. It sounds thrillingly fair — until you remember most people don't have the time, patience, or information to make decisions about, say, fisheries policy or monetary supply.
The UK flirts with direct democracy via referendums. But as Clement Attlee put it, they can be "a device of demagogues and dictators". Theresa May learned this the hard way after the 2016 Brexit referendum: she campaigned to remain, then ended up leading the charge to leave.
Public Trust: MPs vs. The Public
Public trust in MPs is… fragile. In 2021, a YouGov poll found that 80% of people thought there was "a fair or significant amount of corruption" in UK politics. The other 20% presumably weren't paying attention.
Voter Turnout
Once upon a time (1964–1997), turnout averaged a healthy 74.5%. By 2001, it plummeted to 59.4%, possibly because Labour was cruising to victory and the opposition leader made paint-drying look exciting. Recently it's hovered in the mid-60s — which is better than nothing, but still suggests a lot of people have given up on the whole thing.
And here's the kicker: political engagement is lowest among the poorest. In 2019, only 53% of voters in the D/E social group cast a ballot, compared to 68% of A/B voters. In some deprived areas, turnout was under 50%. Apparently, democracy works best if you're not too busy working three jobs to notice it's happening.
Ten Questions for A Level Politics Students
-
How might Churchill's quote be used to both defend and criticise democracy?
-
If MPs are meant to represent all constituents, how can they justify following their party over their voters?
-
Is the First Past the Post system still fit for purpose in the 21st century? Why or why not?
-
Should MPs be allowed second jobs? If so, under what conditions?
-
Is the House of Lords' lack of election a fatal flaw or a stabilising feature?
-
Why do poorer citizens participate less in elections — and how might that be addressed?
-
Was Attlee right to call referendums "a device of demagogues and dictators"?
-
Can public trust in MPs be restored, and if so, how?
-
How much political knowledge should citizens be expected to have before voting on complex issues?
-
Which is the bigger threat to democracy: corruption or voter apathy?
