Past Paper Questions
Democracy in Crisis/Participation crisis
Rights Protection
Pressure groups, lobbying and think-tanks
Referendums
Participation:
participation in the UK has been significantly decreasing with lower election turnout
e.g. 69% in 2017, 67% in 2019 compared to 77.1% in 1967
also significantly lower than most European countries e.g. Dutch turnout is around 81.9%
also a problem in devolved bodies across the UK e.g. Scottish parliament turnout in 2016 was 55.6%, turnout for referendums is often low, Brexit was only 72.2% despite being highly controversial and with a hugely significant impact
BUT
low turnout is not always a sign of democratic crisis/lack of involvement
e.g. Tony Blair won when there was a 59% turnout in 2001 but this can be explained by political hapathy; people knew he would win and were happy
However this fails to explain more general trends of turnout, and people were still supportive of Blair even if they didn’t vote for him, whereas recent polls suggest under 21% of people trust their current politicians
Party Membership:
party membership has also been decreasing, with only 1.5% of the electorate being members of current political parties
e.g. Conservative party membership went from 3% to 0.5%
political disengagement suggests a democratic crisis/lack of involvement
BUT
Labour membership is still relatively high (366,600) about triple as high as the Conservatives
smaller parties also tend to have proportionally high membership
Also not as clear of an indicator e.g. lots of people are still members of pressure groups (RSPB membership is higher than all 3 major parties combined) and there has been a widening of access points to politics e.g. e-petitions
Not necessarily the best indicator of a democratic crisis but also a reduction of direct political engagement, people are no longer directly participating and engaging in politics themselves
Elections and Electoral Systems:
although there is reduced participation, the UK still produces clear majorities and forms largely stable governments elected via popular sovereignty, suggesting there is not a democratic crisis
BUT
the use of FPTP combined with the low election turnout also undermines democracy in the UK as governments are elected on a weakened mandate
e.g. 2015 Conservative government only won 36.9% of the vote - no real majority and yet they governed with a mandate and even initiated Brexit
low participation signifies changing attitudes to democracy and politics and undermines UK democracy in elections
Winner’s bonus and cosntituencies also means results aren’t accurately or proportionally given seat shares e.g. UKIP won 12.6% vote in 2015 but only one seat - can further feelings of democratic apathy and disengagement
conventions of referendums, devolution, attempted AV
Referendums:
as the Blair Labour government established a convention of using referendums to make constitutionally significant decisions, UK system of democracy actually involves more elements of direct democracy and thus has been improved
referendum on Brexit, Indyref → results have popular sovereignty and a clear mandate, doesn’t allow the government to act in isolation
BUT
low referndum turnout e.g. 72.2% for controversial Brexit
suggestions to see them only as advisory (would never really happen)
issues with referendums themselves e.g. corruption, BeLeave as an unregistered funding £666,000
Devolution:
devolution has also developed the stages and extent of representative democracy in the UK
more levels of representation, localised policy, Scotland Act 2014
can elect more representatives
BUT
lower engagement in devolved elections e.g. 55.6% in Scotland’s 2016 election
also led to inequality in representation and problems like the West Lothian Question as to whether English citizens now don’t receive as much representation as they should
AV replacement:
Roy Jenkins, in a report for the New Labour government, suggested the an alternative system of voting should be put in place but New Labour made no changes
However, in 2011, a referendum was held on AV, with a no result and extremely low turnout of around 30%
As a result, no change has been made to the UK’s system of representative democracy itself with FPTP still in place, and arguably this lack of change is because of democratic reasons
BUT
the mandate provided by the AV referendum can be questioned as a result of how low the turnout was and how little the public were informed about the vote
Furthermore, government’s failures to put it in place like New Labour highlights how the parties benefiting from the system are unwilling to change it
UK’s representative democracy is hugely undermined by FPTP, leading huge portions of the population unrepresented
e.g. in 2016, 12.6% of the population voted for UKIP and over a million voted for the Greens, which both resulted in only one seat per respective party
The failures of effective voting reform arguably mean the UK’s system of representative democracy is still fundamentally flawed
constitutional protection, supreme court protection, rights versus security
constitutional protection:
british bill of rights, human rights act, race relations act
but
the constitution is uncodified so what extent are rights actually protected, does allow for updating of rights but also makes it contingent on government at the time and majority support
supreme court:
can rule on government violations and protect rights that way, first 10 years of human rights act being in place had less than 30 rulings of incompatability
but
due to the nature of these rulings (section 3 and 4) they are just advisory e.g. rwanda bill ruled as unconstitutional, law was just changed and passed through a second time
rights vs security
whilst general democratic rights are relatively well protected at the moment, groups that struggle with representation or risk other british values/parts of society cause issues with human rights e.g. prisoners and terrorists. attempts to infringe upon the rights of terrorists e.g. tony blair and holding them for 90 days without charge, faced a rebellion by 49 peers and wasn’t passed
BUT
prisoners lack some fundamental rights such as the right to vote (important becuase rights on the uk are fundamentally dependent on voters), declared as incompatible with the ECHR in 2023
acknowledge a change over time (e.g. leaving EU)
→ parliament/legislation, via the courts, via pressure groups (ways of protecting)
must talk about individual and collective rights
Parliament/Legislation | The Courts | Pressure Groups |
|---|---|---|
Lots of legislation protecting both kinds of rights e.g. Human Rights Act, expression of ECHR in UK law, Race Rights Act, Equality Act 2010, Freedom of Information Act 2000 Legislation gives parliament to adapt when certain protections need to be changed e.g. protecting collective rights at the cost of individual rights (corona virus act 2020, Dunblane massacre and gun restrictions) Legislation is flexible and easily amended | Power of judicial review, declarations of incompatibility thanks to HRA (Ahmed vs the Treasury on freezing suspected terrorist assets) (R vs UK on detaining suspected terrorists at Belmarsh) → courts display a willingness to protect individuals rights | work to uphold rights of individuals and collectives Liberty - legal challenge against IPA campaigning against Rwanda policy to put pressure to respect rights |
However, could be argued soveriengty gives parliament too much power, lets them set limits without challenge e.g. IPA 2016 (investigatory powers act), Public Order Act 2023 Government has used this power to limit collective rights for political reasons e.g. 2023 Strikes Act (limits who can strike in times of emergency) | Courts are limited - parliament can override them e.g. Terrorist Asset Freezing Act, clash between collective and individual rights where individual rights are sacrificed Furthermore, courts have been complicit in challenging rights protection e.g. Court of Appeal determining Shamima Begum’s case, Lee vs Asher’s Bakery (gay cake) decisions can lead to a denial of rights on one side | Legal challenges may not be successful (IPA not repealed) campaigns against bills often fail to dissuade governments (e.g. Rwanda bill, prisoners voting) |
Protected but not guaranteed? or Collective rights protected but individual rights are not? or simply argue that they do protect them | Limited protection |
minority rights but which minorities: representation of minority rights that would otherwise go unnoticed but imbalance in who is represented (wealthy minority groups e.g. pigeon fanciers) and dependence on government
help democracy by pluralism but outsider versus insider status: pressure groups help create a pluralist democracy and represent those not directly represented in government but extent to which they succeed is dependent on their status, insider groups tend to be less democratic organisations with insider influence
increase participation but reasons for membership and extent of impact: pressure groups have very high membershio e.g. RSPB 1.2 million but larger pressure groups tend to have higher participation for other reasons (e.g. AA and fixing your car, National Trust and visiting areas) so actual impact on democracy is limited, even extremely large participation does not translate into political change e.g. stop the war march had no effect
insider vs outsider status
majority versus minority rights: issues of uncodified, dependent on popular will versus pressure groups and minority rights e.g. Gurkha campaign
legitimacy versus turnout: generally high turnout increases democratic legitimacy (e.g. 72.2% Brexit, Scottish independence ref 84%), higher turnouts than general elections, greater democratic legitimacy, mandates for future action BUT not always high so participation is variable, AV and Scottish devolved assembly had low turnouts BUT low turnout actually demonstrates an apathy and therefore provides an answer to the question to some degree
parliamentary sovereignty versus direct democracy: no formal obligation for parliament to accept results, important on divisive issues e.g. Brexit and leave only winning 52% of vote, politicians like Dominic Grieves called for the vote to be advisory, leaves decision making in the hands of the public rather than expertise Burkean representatives BUT source of popular sovereignty, have created positive changes such as devolution, limits to their power e.g. SC blocking a second Scottish Indie ref
misinformation versus public influence: Brexit referendum built upon misinformation, VoteLeave spending over £7 million, unregistered campaign group spending £666,000, weak laws creating disadvantaged and corrupted referendums BUT if they were well controlled they would be positive for democracy, stronger mandate than that claimed from elections (e.g. 36.9% support for Tories in 2019), demonstrated unpopularity of certain other reforms e.g. english devolution (78% voting no), arguably encourage participation and provide a mandate but need improved laws
prisoners, under 18s, those without voter ID
Prisoners:
would make the UK compatible with international law - currently violating the ECHR article 3, protocol 1 → Hirst vs UK 2005 ruled in favour of prisoners voting but was rejected
giving prisoners the vote also speaks to basic democratic principles, especially since significant decisions are made around prisoners (e.g. Victims and Prisoners bill)
Furthermore, there are 96,000 prisoners in the UK, 27% of which are ethnic minorities, so being excluded from the vote excludes certain groups more than others
BUT
limited public appetite for it - in 2012 a YouGov poll showed that 63% are against prisoners having the vote, as well as it being unpopular against MPs (234-22 against 2010 vote)
and
areas with high prisoner density could sway constituency results e.g. HMP Wandsworth prison (could just vote in home cosntituencies?)
16-17 year olds:
Has been successful in devolved regions - lowered to 16 through Scottish elections act 2015 and Senned and Elections act 2020
Indyref had a 75% turnout amongst 16-17 year olds, suggest maybe they would have a higher turnout than 18-24 year olds currently
would help rebalance age groups
political decisions have long-term impacts for these groups
BUT
historically young people don’t vote
on average 18-24 year olds vs 60+ year olds is 47% vs 74%
And 18 years old is the legal age of adulthood so maybe under 18s shouldn’t vote
No Voter IDs:
election fraud is very rare
in 2019, there were only 34 cases out of 58,000,000 votes in all elections
requiring voter ID disproportionately disadvantages minority groups, as highlighted by 2019 electoral commission
BUT
it might prevent greater election fraud e.g. in 2019 there were 342 alleged cases of electoral fraud
its easy to acquire - 96% of the population have ID, the government offers authority certificates for those without
Democracy in Crisis/Participation crisis
Rights Protection
Pressure groups, lobbying and think-tanks
Referendums
Participation:
participation in the UK has been significantly decreasing with lower election turnout
e.g. 69% in 2017, 67% in 2019 compared to 77.1% in 1967
also significantly lower than most European countries e.g. Dutch turnout is around 81.9%
also a problem in devolved bodies across the UK e.g. Scottish parliament turnout in 2016 was 55.6%, turnout for referendums is often low, Brexit was only 72.2% despite being highly controversial and with a hugely significant impact
BUT
low turnout is not always a sign of democratic crisis/lack of involvement
e.g. Tony Blair won when there was a 59% turnout in 2001 but this can be explained by political hapathy; people knew he would win and were happy
However this fails to explain more general trends of turnout, and people were still supportive of Blair even if they didn’t vote for him, whereas recent polls suggest under 21% of people trust their current politicians
Party Membership:
party membership has also been decreasing, with only 1.5% of the electorate being members of current political parties
e.g. Conservative party membership went from 3% to 0.5%
political disengagement suggests a democratic crisis/lack of involvement
BUT
Labour membership is still relatively high (366,600) about triple as high as the Conservatives
smaller parties also tend to have proportionally high membership
Also not as clear of an indicator e.g. lots of people are still members of pressure groups (RSPB membership is higher than all 3 major parties combined) and there has been a widening of access points to politics e.g. e-petitions
Not necessarily the best indicator of a democratic crisis but also a reduction of direct political engagement, people are no longer directly participating and engaging in politics themselves
Elections and Electoral Systems:
although there is reduced participation, the UK still produces clear majorities and forms largely stable governments elected via popular sovereignty, suggesting there is not a democratic crisis
BUT
the use of FPTP combined with the low election turnout also undermines democracy in the UK as governments are elected on a weakened mandate
e.g. 2015 Conservative government only won 36.9% of the vote - no real majority and yet they governed with a mandate and even initiated Brexit
low participation signifies changing attitudes to democracy and politics and undermines UK democracy in elections
Winner’s bonus and cosntituencies also means results aren’t accurately or proportionally given seat shares e.g. UKIP won 12.6% vote in 2015 but only one seat - can further feelings of democratic apathy and disengagement
conventions of referendums, devolution, attempted AV
Referendums:
as the Blair Labour government established a convention of using referendums to make constitutionally significant decisions, UK system of democracy actually involves more elements of direct democracy and thus has been improved
referendum on Brexit, Indyref → results have popular sovereignty and a clear mandate, doesn’t allow the government to act in isolation
BUT
low referndum turnout e.g. 72.2% for controversial Brexit
suggestions to see them only as advisory (would never really happen)
issues with referendums themselves e.g. corruption, BeLeave as an unregistered funding £666,000
Devolution:
devolution has also developed the stages and extent of representative democracy in the UK
more levels of representation, localised policy, Scotland Act 2014
can elect more representatives
BUT
lower engagement in devolved elections e.g. 55.6% in Scotland’s 2016 election
also led to inequality in representation and problems like the West Lothian Question as to whether English citizens now don’t receive as much representation as they should
AV replacement:
Roy Jenkins, in a report for the New Labour government, suggested the an alternative system of voting should be put in place but New Labour made no changes
However, in 2011, a referendum was held on AV, with a no result and extremely low turnout of around 30%
As a result, no change has been made to the UK’s system of representative democracy itself with FPTP still in place, and arguably this lack of change is because of democratic reasons
BUT
the mandate provided by the AV referendum can be questioned as a result of how low the turnout was and how little the public were informed about the vote
Furthermore, government’s failures to put it in place like New Labour highlights how the parties benefiting from the system are unwilling to change it
UK’s representative democracy is hugely undermined by FPTP, leading huge portions of the population unrepresented
e.g. in 2016, 12.6% of the population voted for UKIP and over a million voted for the Greens, which both resulted in only one seat per respective party
The failures of effective voting reform arguably mean the UK’s system of representative democracy is still fundamentally flawed
constitutional protection, supreme court protection, rights versus security
constitutional protection:
british bill of rights, human rights act, race relations act
but
the constitution is uncodified so what extent are rights actually protected, does allow for updating of rights but also makes it contingent on government at the time and majority support
supreme court:
can rule on government violations and protect rights that way, first 10 years of human rights act being in place had less than 30 rulings of incompatability
but
due to the nature of these rulings (section 3 and 4) they are just advisory e.g. rwanda bill ruled as unconstitutional, law was just changed and passed through a second time
rights vs security
whilst general democratic rights are relatively well protected at the moment, groups that struggle with representation or risk other british values/parts of society cause issues with human rights e.g. prisoners and terrorists. attempts to infringe upon the rights of terrorists e.g. tony blair and holding them for 90 days without charge, faced a rebellion by 49 peers and wasn’t passed
BUT
prisoners lack some fundamental rights such as the right to vote (important becuase rights on the uk are fundamentally dependent on voters), declared as incompatible with the ECHR in 2023
acknowledge a change over time (e.g. leaving EU)
→ parliament/legislation, via the courts, via pressure groups (ways of protecting)
must talk about individual and collective rights
Parliament/Legislation | The Courts | Pressure Groups |
|---|---|---|
Lots of legislation protecting both kinds of rights e.g. Human Rights Act, expression of ECHR in UK law, Race Rights Act, Equality Act 2010, Freedom of Information Act 2000 Legislation gives parliament to adapt when certain protections need to be changed e.g. protecting collective rights at the cost of individual rights (corona virus act 2020, Dunblane massacre and gun restrictions) Legislation is flexible and easily amended | Power of judicial review, declarations of incompatibility thanks to HRA (Ahmed vs the Treasury on freezing suspected terrorist assets) (R vs UK on detaining suspected terrorists at Belmarsh) → courts display a willingness to protect individuals rights | work to uphold rights of individuals and collectives Liberty - legal challenge against IPA campaigning against Rwanda policy to put pressure to respect rights |
However, could be argued soveriengty gives parliament too much power, lets them set limits without challenge e.g. IPA 2016 (investigatory powers act), Public Order Act 2023 Government has used this power to limit collective rights for political reasons e.g. 2023 Strikes Act (limits who can strike in times of emergency) | Courts are limited - parliament can override them e.g. Terrorist Asset Freezing Act, clash between collective and individual rights where individual rights are sacrificed Furthermore, courts have been complicit in challenging rights protection e.g. Court of Appeal determining Shamima Begum’s case, Lee vs Asher’s Bakery (gay cake) decisions can lead to a denial of rights on one side | Legal challenges may not be successful (IPA not repealed) campaigns against bills often fail to dissuade governments (e.g. Rwanda bill, prisoners voting) |
Protected but not guaranteed? or Collective rights protected but individual rights are not? or simply argue that they do protect them | Limited protection |
minority rights but which minorities: representation of minority rights that would otherwise go unnoticed but imbalance in who is represented (wealthy minority groups e.g. pigeon fanciers) and dependence on government
help democracy by pluralism but outsider versus insider status: pressure groups help create a pluralist democracy and represent those not directly represented in government but extent to which they succeed is dependent on their status, insider groups tend to be less democratic organisations with insider influence
increase participation but reasons for membership and extent of impact: pressure groups have very high membershio e.g. RSPB 1.2 million but larger pressure groups tend to have higher participation for other reasons (e.g. AA and fixing your car, National Trust and visiting areas) so actual impact on democracy is limited, even extremely large participation does not translate into political change e.g. stop the war march had no effect
insider vs outsider status
majority versus minority rights: issues of uncodified, dependent on popular will versus pressure groups and minority rights e.g. Gurkha campaign
legitimacy versus turnout: generally high turnout increases democratic legitimacy (e.g. 72.2% Brexit, Scottish independence ref 84%), higher turnouts than general elections, greater democratic legitimacy, mandates for future action BUT not always high so participation is variable, AV and Scottish devolved assembly had low turnouts BUT low turnout actually demonstrates an apathy and therefore provides an answer to the question to some degree
parliamentary sovereignty versus direct democracy: no formal obligation for parliament to accept results, important on divisive issues e.g. Brexit and leave only winning 52% of vote, politicians like Dominic Grieves called for the vote to be advisory, leaves decision making in the hands of the public rather than expertise Burkean representatives BUT source of popular sovereignty, have created positive changes such as devolution, limits to their power e.g. SC blocking a second Scottish Indie ref
misinformation versus public influence: Brexit referendum built upon misinformation, VoteLeave spending over £7 million, unregistered campaign group spending £666,000, weak laws creating disadvantaged and corrupted referendums BUT if they were well controlled they would be positive for democracy, stronger mandate than that claimed from elections (e.g. 36.9% support for Tories in 2019), demonstrated unpopularity of certain other reforms e.g. english devolution (78% voting no), arguably encourage participation and provide a mandate but need improved laws
prisoners, under 18s, those without voter ID
Prisoners:
would make the UK compatible with international law - currently violating the ECHR article 3, protocol 1 → Hirst vs UK 2005 ruled in favour of prisoners voting but was rejected
giving prisoners the vote also speaks to basic democratic principles, especially since significant decisions are made around prisoners (e.g. Victims and Prisoners bill)
Furthermore, there are 96,000 prisoners in the UK, 27% of which are ethnic minorities, so being excluded from the vote excludes certain groups more than others
BUT
limited public appetite for it - in 2012 a YouGov poll showed that 63% are against prisoners having the vote, as well as it being unpopular against MPs (234-22 against 2010 vote)
and
areas with high prisoner density could sway constituency results e.g. HMP Wandsworth prison (could just vote in home cosntituencies?)
16-17 year olds:
Has been successful in devolved regions - lowered to 16 through Scottish elections act 2015 and Senned and Elections act 2020
Indyref had a 75% turnout amongst 16-17 year olds, suggest maybe they would have a higher turnout than 18-24 year olds currently
would help rebalance age groups
political decisions have long-term impacts for these groups
BUT
historically young people don’t vote
on average 18-24 year olds vs 60+ year olds is 47% vs 74%
And 18 years old is the legal age of adulthood so maybe under 18s shouldn’t vote
No Voter IDs:
election fraud is very rare
in 2019, there were only 34 cases out of 58,000,000 votes in all elections
requiring voter ID disproportionately disadvantages minority groups, as highlighted by 2019 electoral commission
BUT
it might prevent greater election fraud e.g. in 2019 there were 342 alleged cases of electoral fraud
its easy to acquire - 96% of the population have ID, the government offers authority certificates for those without
