Democracy and Participation
1. Evaluate the view that the wider introduction of direct democracy will improve the
quality of the United Kingdom’s representative democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of democracy that allows citizens to make ‘direct’ decisions on policy
without representatives. Legislation under direct democracy holds the most legitimacy because
decisions are made directly by the public. There are various forms of direct democracy, such as
referendums, citizens juries, and e-petitions. However, it will be argued that direct democracy
fails to achieve its intended aims of greater participation and the settling of disputes and can
harm minority rights. Introducing more forms of direct democracy will harm the UK’s
representative democracy.
The most common form of direct democracy used in the UK is referendums. They can solve
highly controversial issues. For example, Brexit Referendum 2016 resolved the issue of the UK's
membership in the EU. Although referendums are advisory and non-binding, they compel the
government to represent the popular mandate, leading to improvements in representative
democracy. However, direct democracy can possibly lead to the tyranny of the majority where
minority interests are ignored. For example, in the Brexit referendum where 52% voted to leave -
turnout was 72%, the decision was effectively made by only 37.7% of the voting population. This
outcome left behind a high number of people unsatisfied. This can further result in apathy to vote
and even lower turnouts. Another issue with referendums is that voters might lack sufficient
knowledge to make informed decisions. For example, the most frequent google search request
the day after the referendum was ‘What is the EU?’. Therefore, it is best to leave such important
decisions to the well-informed politicians who account for all rather than for a few.
Another form of direct democracy is e-petitions. The UK Parliament petitions website allows
members of the public to create and support petitions for consideration by the Parliament of the
UK. The Petition Committee will consider a petition for debate if it receives more than 100,000
signatures. Currently, there are over 30,000 petitions on the government website. E-democracy
has been proven to work in Estonia. It can also attract younger voters. This shows that
e-petitions have a potential to increase participation, thus improving democracy. However,
e-petitions are a lazy form of political participation, known as slacktivism. It is just too easy to
submit a petition, and that may be a problem for a meaningful engagement. In addition, there is a
risk of hacking with e-democracy as it was seen in the 2016 US presidential elections. Therefore,
representatives act as more meaningful mediators suggesting that direct democracy won’t
improve the quality of representative democracy.
Citizens juries is another form of direct democracy. A citizens' jury is a collection of individuals
selected to represent the wider population. It holds meetings to discuss an issue and make
recommendations based on deliberation. Once these recommendations are made, the assembly
is dissolved. The format allows for open discussion which in turn enables an informed
recommendation to be made by citizens. Citizens’ Juries are a tool for engaging citizens on a
range of issues. Such as examining cuts in public service funding, balancing work and family life
or healthcare provision. Their small size allows for effective deliberation, but they are sufficiently
diverse. The method has many strengths including direct citizen input and highly specified
outcome delivered through a verdict. Juries have been used in countries like Ireland to consider
,changes to abortion laws. They can be argued to work even better than referendums as the
participants are more informed. However, the problem with this method is that it could
over-inform the middle classes or those who have more free time, like the elderly. Citizens juries
are expensive, and their sample size may need to be more representative. Also, there is much
room for manipulation. ‘Experts’ may be chosen by administrators to sway the argument to a
particular side. It is a big question if people would actually want to engage so often or would
rather want politicians to follow through their manifestos that they were elected upon. Therefore,
citizens’ juries are unlikely to improve representative democracy in the UK.
Overall, it is important to note that there isn’t high demand in society for wider introduction of
direct democracy. Furthermore, the evidence above suggests that direct participation does not
necessarily lead to more efficient outcomes. Therefore, it is unlikely that the wider introduction of
direct democracy will improve the quality of the UK’s representative democracy.
, 2. Evaluate the view that apart from referendums, the other forms of direct democracy
would undermine representative democracy in the United Kingdom.
Direct democracy is a form of democracy that allows citizens to make ‘direct’ decisions on policy
without representatives. Legislation under direct democracy holds the most legitimacy because
decisions are made directly by the public. There are various forms of direct democracy, citizen’s
juries, e-petitions, and initiatives. It will be argued that direct democracy fails to achieve its
intended aims of greater participation and the settling of disputes, and can harm minority rights.
Introducing more forms of direct democracy will harm the UK’s representative democracy.
One of the forms of direct democracy is e-petitions. The UK Parliament petitions website allows
members of the public to create and support petitions for consideration by the Parliament of the
UK. The Petition Committee will consider a petition for debate if it receives more than 100,000
signatures. Currently, there are over 30,000 petitions on the government website. E-democracy
has been proven to work in Estonia. It can also attract younger voters. This shows that
e-petitions have a potential to increase participation, thus improving democracy. However,
e-petitions are a lazy form of political participation, known as slacktivism. It is just too easy to
submit a petition, and that may be a problem for a meaningful engagement. In addition, there is a
risk of hacking with e-democracy as it was seen in the 2016 US presidential elections. Therefore,
representatives act as more meaningful mediators suggesting that direct democracy won’t
improve the quality of representative democracy.
Another form of petitions is initiatives. These are not used in the UK at the moment but are found
in some US states and Switzerland. An initiative that is successful by reaching a number of votes
will automatically trigger a referendum. Therefore, initiatives give people control over
referendums. They also show what the public feels deeply about. They are likely to help engage
in politics in between elections. However, direct initiatives would be incompatible with the UK
political system and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, as the UK Parliament cannot be
forced to pass certain legislation, even if it has been supported by a popular vote. Furthermore,
initiatives are likely to lead to the tyranny of the majority. In Switzerland, which allows initiatives,
minarets of mosques were banned via an initiative in 2009, reflecting a majority attitude against
Muslim migration. Overall, politicians might act wiser and will not let radical ideas take over.
Citizens juries is another form of direct democracy. A citizens' jury is a collection of individuals
selected to represent the wider population. It holds meetings to discuss an issue and make
recommendations based on deliberation. Once these recommendations are made, the assembly
is dissolved. The format allows for open discussion which in turn enables an informed
recommendation to be made by citizens. Citizens’ Juries are a tool for engaging citizens on a
range of issues. Such as examining cuts in public service funding, balancing work and family life
or healthcare provision. Their small size allows for effective deliberation, but they are sufficiently
diverse. The method has many strengths including direct citizen input and highly specified
outcome delivered through a verdict. Juries have been used in countries like Ireland to consider
changes to abortion laws. They can be argued to work even better than referendums as the
participants are more informed. However, the problem with this method is that it could
over-inform the middle classes or those who have more free time, like the elderly. Citizens juries
are expensive, and their sample size may need to be more representative. Also, there is much
room for manipulation. ‘Experts’ may be chosen by administrators to sway the argument to a
particular side. It is a big question if people would actually want to engage so often or would
, rather want politicians to follow through their manifestos that they were elected upon. Therefore,
citizens’ juries are unlikely to improve representative democracy in the UK.
Overall, it is important to note that there isn’t high demand in society for wider introduction of
direct democracy other than referendums. Furthermore, the evidence above suggests that direct
participation does not necessarily mean more efficient outcomes. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
wider introduction of direct democracy will improve the quality of the UK’s representative
democracy.
