Evaluate the view the UK is facing a participation crisis?
Definition: A lack of engagement by a significant number of citizens to relate to the political
process either by choosing not to vote or to join or become members of political parties or to offer
themselves for public office.
Occurs when engagement with the formal institutions of a democracy begin to decline, particularly
voting in GE. Participation is crucial for any democracy to function, without such it cannot be
representative. It ensures citizens have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives and that their
representatives are held accountable.
In recent years we have steadily seen the rise of apathy, with fewer people engaging with formal
institutions. So the current electoral system, declining party membership & government ignoring
online politics causes a participation crisis.
However, it will be argued that although formal participation may be declining, informal methods of
participation are on the rise - like levels of referendum turnout, online engagement and pressure
group memberships. Therefore, there is not yet a participation crisis, despite key causes for
concerns.
Yes - crisis No
Turnout = much lower than it used to be + Turnout has been steadily increasing, so
undermines legitimacy e.g. in 2001 general despite cause for concern there is not an actual
election turnout was a low of 59.4% participation crisis:
- 67.3% at the 2019 general election.
Turnout was just 33.6% in the 2022 Local - Huge resurgences during referendums
Elections like 72.6% in 2016 EU.
- 2001 result arguably was an anomaly
This could increase now because of voter ID = as it appeared Labour would win & Blair
2023 local council elections were the first time said it was bc people were
requiring voter ID - which civil liberty groups happy/hapathy
argue it threatens the 'right to vote' + - Turnout at Local Elections is higher
disproportionately affect those from poorer and when they correspond with a General
marginalised communities who will be Election e.g. 2015 Local Elections was
disenfranchised who do not have any (approx 2 65%.
million don't, and trans people may be turned
away if ID doesn’t look like them). This was seen Arguably, the real crisis is our electoral system.
by 9000+ people being turned away from polling For those e.g. in safe seats, it makes more
stations & a drop in turnout in some councils. It sense to abstain and participate in other ways.
was also an attempt for the Conservative's to
"gerrymander" the electoral system - but instead Also, elections have increased turnout through
it negatively affected them as they found the their social media campaigns e.g. corbyn 2017
people who didn't have ID were elderly and to 60% 18-24 voting
voted Conservative.
Devolved elections… BUT low turnout in devolved elections does not
necessarily indicate a crisis of participation but
Have lower turnout e.g. Northern ireland 2023 rather reflects the limitations of regional politics.
turnout was 54% & Senedd is always less than The smaller scale and narrower focus of
50. Factors such as the perceived distance devolved issues may make them less salient to
between regional institutions and the everyday voters compared to national-level elections.
lives of citizens, as well as the complexity of Additionally, the devolved nature of these
regional issues, may contribute to lower turnout elections means that some citizens may
rates perceive them as less impactful on their daily
lives.
Party membership = Era of mass membership, More importantly, increasing membership &
when parties had millions of members, is over. participation for pressure groups = As far
,Party membership is declining (2015 only 1.0% fewer people identify strongly with any of the
of electorate was a member of the big 3 political parties, people prefer to be involved in
compared with 3.8% in 1983) in major parties. single issues - such as climate change or
The Conservative Party had almost 3 million remain in the EU - that concern them, which PG
members in the 1950s, but this had dropped to better enable them to express their views and
around 130,000-150,000 by 2010 - declined by bring about the change they want. E.g. numbers
50% when Cameron became leader. Few as involved in Extinction Rebellion demonstrations
190,000 in the Conservative Party in 2019 (it have been in the ten thousands like 50,000
was 400,000 in the mid-1990s) + 172,000 in April 2023
2022. While Labour increased under Corbyn
over half a million (2018 - 552,000, grassroots 40-50% a member / 1 in 10 adults are members
enthusiasm for his radical alternative offered) it of environmental ones
fell to 432,213 in 2022/3. Suggests a sharp drop
in trust and engagement - leaving the parties Republic anti-monarchy 52 arrested, planning
with fewer volunteers, a limited talent pool to thousands to protest
draw candidates from, and an increasing
reliance upon wealthy donors / pressure groups Non-electoral forms of political participation,
rather than the public. such as online activism or grassroots
movements. For example, the surge in youth
Declining party membership is not a big concern activism and participation in protests, such as
as people may not join due to the price of the the climate strikes or the Black Lives Matter
membership, not have time to attend movement
meetings/events, how parties are doing/any
controversies, and increase in floating voters E.g. National trust has 6 million members, far
who are unlikely to fully identify with one more members than the party's.
party/loyalty is decreasing due to partisan
dealignment… Shows that people feel they can have a
stronger input into political engagement through
& trade union membership declined pressure groups and movements to effect
policies and legislation or political awareness -
into movements and single or multiple issue
campaigns.
Online engagement: E-petitions may not lead Engagement with social media and online
to meaningful change. They must have 10,000 politics, such as e-petitions and opinion polls,
signatures to be responded to and even with has grown since its development & provides an
100,000 the Petitions Committee may not accept opportunity for all citizens to participate in UK
/ government does not have to debate the issue politics. UK government's e-petitions platform
in parliament. allows citizens to create and sign petitions on a
range of issues, from calling for changes to
E.g. in 2019 6 million people signed the legislation to highlighting important social
e-petition to stay in the EU, but nothing was issues. The fact that hundreds of thousands of
changed. Since the government fails to respond people sign these petitions suggests that there
to all petitions, even those that focus on is a significant level of public interest and
important issues, this shows a significant crisis in engagement in UK politics. Between 2017-2019
participation - not in the fact that people aren’t there were over 16 million e-petitions available,
partaking, but because they are ignored by the set up by the local public. The petition to
government. Therefore, if the government does Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU in
not listen to those that elected them, as their February 2019, and gained over 6.1 million
representatives, they are partially causing the signatures, making it the most signed e-petition
participation crisis themselves. in UK history at the time. Or end child food
poverty – 1.1 Million
NEW EXAMPLE = In April 2023, a three-hour
debate was held after 183,000 people signed a
petition calling for a public inquiry into the
impact of leaving the European Union. The
government says Brexit was a "democratic
choice" and dismissed calls for a public inquiry.
,Evaluate the view that pressure groups are more influential than corporations in influencing
government policy?
‘Influence’ refers to actual change to policies to serve the interest of a company. In recent years,
there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the lobbying of wealthy corporations that have an
undue influence on government policy. The recent Owen Patterson scandal illustrated the ability of
big businesses to 'buy’’ politicians. In conclusion, it is clear that apart from a few influential pressure
groups, corporations have a much greater influence on government policy. The strongest argument
arises from corporations’ use of lobbying, as even policies to reduce this influence have been
proven unsuccessful. Unless parliament tightens up the laws regarding lobbying and money in
politics, corporations will continue to have undue influence.
Could also do:
● Influence over media
● Influence over parliament
● Influence over elections
● Repress civil liberties
Example: Recently a sting operation by the anti-Brexit campaigning group 'Led by Donkeys'. They
created a sham company before approaching MPs like Matt Hancock, Kwazi Kwarteng & Gavin
Williamson, asking if they would join the firm's international advisory board + they all were looking
for lucrative second jobs (asking for over £10,000 pay a day)
Yes - PG are more influential No - corporations are more influential
Influential pressure groups: Weak argument - insider PGs are exceptions &
even their inside status is not always powerful
Insider status PGs have a disproportionate enough e.g. in 2023 March junior doctors went
influence on government policy in comparison to on strike BUT most are in the BMA, an insider
other trade unions due to high status and class. pressure group
e.g. BMA (trade union and professional body for Majority of PGs, in particular outsider groups,
doctors): do not enjoy these privileges.
- won a judicial review which overturned
regulations that gave the UK Secretary E.g. environmental PGs like Insulate Britain,
of State for Health & Social Care the Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, despite
power to suspend the payment of gaining much media coverage, have not had a
pensions benefits to any NHS great influence on the government due to their
professional charged with certain radical aims which aren’t in line with the
criminal offences but not yet convicted. government’s priorities. Instead they are doing
- Successfully campaigned for a 2% rise fracking etc
to dr's wages post pandemic
Their influence was amplified during the COVID
pandemic as the government cannot afford to
lose public support as a consequence of
seeming anti-doctor.
e.g. Stonewall (LGBTQ+ rights). Since
Thatcher’s government and the introduction of
Section 28, they have contributed to numerous
policies/laws like LGBTQ+ inclusive teaching in
the national curriculum, protection from
discrimination at work, right for same-sex
couples to get married, 2001 Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act reduced the age of consent
for same-sex relations to 16 etc. Accredited to
the change in values within society since the
80’s, resulting in a more inclusive and
, progressive government.
>> undermined by the instances where pressure Corporations power in the economy:
groups achieved their goals despite the views of
big corporations. For instance, Greenpeace, Management of the economy is arguably one of
Planestupid and numerous environmental the best measurements of the success of a
pressure groups were successful in delaying the government.
decision for a third runway at Heathrow. This
was despite support from major airlines such as Corporations are too powerful for the
British Airways, EasyJet and Virgin Atlantic. This government to allow them to fail, consequently
is relevant evidence to be considered however is leading to the influence on decisions in order for
not strong enough in comparison to the various their business and the economy to flourish.
examples of billions of pounds spent for
corporations. E.g. £1 billion in support for businesses most
impacted by Omicron across the UK by
Chancellor of the Exchequer Sunak. So the
government intervenes to prevent corporations
from failing due to their perceived importance to
the economy.
They can pressurise the government to give
them more favourable legislation or financial
assistance e.g. by threatening to relocate to
another country, which would result in increased
unemployment + loss of economic strength in
the UK.
Pressure groups don’t have the same level of
influence in the economy, resulting in a lack of
power.
Laws against political lobbying: E.g. Owen Strongest argument - corporations use of
Patterson made to resign. political lobbying:
'Transparency of Lobbying Act 2014’ was made Through their wealth and resources,
to enhance the transparency surrounding corporations can lobby politicians and gain
lobbying & on the surface this seems to resolve influence via this route. It is unlikely that
the undemocratic influence lobbying holds. pressure groups would have this same level of
Theoretically potects ministers and their senior wealth and thus cannot compete for influence
civil servants from confusion and conflicts, as on an equal playing field.
they know all the different interests represented
by the influencers for hire they meet. From 2015-2017, £25 million was spent on
lobbying by big businesses. / The annual spend
But this system only creates a false sense of on lobbying in the UK is estimated to be around
transparency as it will not be possible to tell from £2 Billion
the information disclosed who is lobbying whom,
on what issues, how much time and money is Many politicians are ‘bought’ by these wealthy
being devoted to influencing the political corporations = 'Revolving door' - where senior
process, and what tactics are being used. politicians take well paid jobs in the private
Moreover, the register only covers consultant sector after the leave government service and
lobbyists’ direct contacts with ministers and use their contacts to benefit these corporations
high-ranking officials which in practice is only a
small part of lobbying activity. E.g. David E.g. 2020 Greenshill scandal - During the
Cameron did not break his own law, because it pandemic Cameron lobbied the Chancellor of
is too weak. the Exchequer Sunak via multiple text
messages, asking for Greensill to get the
largest possible allocation of
government-backed loans under Covid
corporate financing facility to keep the company
