Can a fair and free democratic representation exist in a capitalist society?
Abstract
This study will assess whether marginalised groups have an equal opportunity in achieving
democratic representation within a capitalist society as compared to the demographic that takes up the
most seats in parliament, which is found to be, the white, middle class, privately educated man. This
is measured upon three demographics: these are members of the working class, women, and ethnic
minorities. Overall, the justified conclusion to the question, is that it is ideologically achievable, but
not realistically achievable. The nature of capitalism gives people power through money, and when
one demographic is receiving more money than everyone else, due to forms of oppression, disparities
become greater, and there is a power struggle between the different groups. Money is a necessity
within the parliamentary campaigning process, and a great deal of money is spent, and so
demographics that are more likely to have a bigger disposable income are, logically, more likely to
get a seat in parliament, as they have the funds to make their campaign more convincing. It may seem,
therefore, systematically impossible to achieve something that is ‘equal’ within a capitalist society, as
it is in its very nature and ideology to perpetuate and widen disparities, because once one group is
favoured, the rest become oppressed. The findings of this study, however, suggest that capitalism does
not create disparities, it perpetuates them. Therefore, the problem lies within the roots of these forms
of oppression. If these were eradicated then, logically, there would be no disparities for capitalism to
perpetuate. The likeliness, however, of achieving an oppression free society is miniscule. Therefore,
ideologically a ‘fair and free’ democratic representation could exist within a capitalist society. But
realistically, the chances are fractional.
Introduction
The importance of an equal chance at democratic representation
Democracy is defined as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members
of a state, typically through elected representatives. The purpose of democracy is to give everyone a
chance to showcase their opinion as to whom they would like to see represent their constituency in
parliament, this is known as representative democracy, and it is what the UK parliament is based
upon. Each individual is expected to vote for the candidate that most aligns with their beliefs. This
way, each and every person plays a role in shaping, and building a parliament that replicates the
beliefs and values of the UK population. The problem arises, however, when demographics are not
given an equal chance to achieve representation in parliament. Representation is crucial to democracy;
democratic theorists appreciate the contributions of representation to the formation of ‘public opinion’
and’ ‘judgement.’ (Habermas, 1989) If every demographic was not given an equal chance to achieve
democratic representation, then there is no chance that Parliament can illustrate the beliefs of the
population accurately. A study by the University of Bristol suggests that there is a link between the
quality of the outcomes of parliament, and the MPs that push and advocate for these outcomes. ‘There
is a link, albeit not a straightforward one, between ‘who’ is present in our political institutions and the
quality and legitimacy of our democratic processes and outcomes.’ (Childs, 2016) They then go onto
suggest that ‘this is not to say that only female MPs can ‘stand for’ women, or that only Black and
Minority Ethnic (BME) MPs ‘act for’ minority ethnic groups.’ Although it is recognised that different
demographics, can act on other demographics behalf, it is still crucial that every single group is given
an equal chance at representation. This is because, it is more likely for there to be an innate and
genuine connection to the topic that is niche to a specific MPs demographic, and thus, they’re they are
likely and inclined to push for this subject. Therefore, if the purpose of democracy is to have elected
MPs that act upon the citizens behalf and make life changing decisions for the entire population
through politics, then it is the absolute bare minimum the chance to withhold democratic
representation is equal for every demographic. This way best possible outcomes can be achieved. This
belief is a key concept of this study.
, Why democratic representation is flawed in the UK
Democratic representation is flawed in the UK. Technically, on a macro scale, each demographic is
given an equal chance to achieve democratic representation. This is because the parliamentary process
is the same for each demographic. On a micro scale, however, this is a misconception. The
campaigning process when running for parliament, requires a vast amount of money. In this way, the
demographic most likely to have a large disposable income, is more likely to achieve a seat in
parliament, as they have the means to invest in their campaign and make it more convincing. This
ideology is the premise of this study. This process is what leads to demographics being
misrepresented in parliament according to the percentage of the population that they make up. Isabel
Hardman, a journalist for the spectator, found that ‘only 32 percent of MPs elected in 2017 were
female.’ (Hardman, 2018) Although there is not just gender disparity in parliament, there is also
disparity in terms of class, and in terms of ethnicity. The Sutton Trust, which is an organisation that
focuses on researching the link between education and social mobility, found that ‘twenty nine
percent of MPs went to private school’, even though only six percent of the population is privately
educated. (Montacute & Carr, 2017) Furthermore, Hardman also found that, ‘7.8 percent’ of MPs are
black or from an ethnic minority ‘even though roughly 14 percent of the UK population is black or
minority ethnic. (Hardman, 2018) The conclusion for these statistics would be that white, middle-
class men, are the most privileged within the parliamentary process, as they are not part of any of
these marginalised groups mentioned, they are also most likely to have a larger disposable income,
and most likely to become an MP, therefore. This is evidenced within data published by the Office of
National Statistics, which regards the ‘ethnicity pay gap,’ and the ‘gender pay gap.’ Both notions are
delved into later within the study. As stated previously, the parliamentary process benefits this
demographic through the costs that it takes to run a campaign. These costs are something that
Hardman would describe as ‘absurd. It is an embarrassment to Westminster.’ (Hardman, 2018) It is
important to mention the reliability of Hardman as a source of information. Hardman is a journalist
for the Spectator, this magazine is known for being politically conservative. This means that some of
Hardman’s views may contain some sense of right-wing bias. Most of the statistics that she uses,
however, are from trusted sources such as the Sutton trust, or the office of National Statistics. In this
sense her information is reliable. It can be questioned, however, when she is conveying an opinion.
She says that these costs are, ’an embarrassment to Westminster,’ because they instantly sieve out
anyone that is not wealthy enough to stand for parliament from doing so. This creates disparities
between marginalised groups, and the ‘top demographic.’ Throughout this study, there are frequent
references to the ‘top demographic,’ this is defined as the demographic that makes up the majority of
parliament and is most likely to gain a place as an MP, as stated before this is the white, middle-class,
man.
The link between capitalism and democratic representation
These disparities between the representation of women and men in parliament, the upper classes and
lower classes, and white people compared to ethnic minorities, can be explained by capitalism.
Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are
controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Marxists would argue that society is based upon two main social classes known as the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat, the bourgeoisie being the ‘elite’ class, that owns the means of production within
society, and holds immense wealth through this. The proletariat being the majority of people who
work for the bourgeoisie, and in the Marxists view, are exploited by them, as they receive low wages,
so that the bourgeoisie can take much of the profit and therefore keep their heightened position in
society and the social hierarchy. This very ideology is argued to affect democratic representation, as it
means the working class (proletariat) do not earn a profit big enough to run for parliament, just the
promotion through leaflets can cost extortionate amounts, ‘candidates can spend around £4000 on
glossy leaflets,’ (Hardman, 2018) however the bourgeoisie, in this case wealthy people who come
from backgrounds that can afford such things, are instantly able to receive greater advantages, as they
