Democracy And Participation

Question 1

The Nature of Democracy:

Answer 1

The Nature of Democracy
• Definition: Democracy originates from the Greek words demos (the people) and kratia (rule by).
• Historical Context: Ancient Athenian democracy was limited—only free males (10–20% of the population) could participate, excluding enslaved people, women, and foreign residents.
• Changing Perception: Historically, democracy was associated with mob rule and instability. Only in the 20th century did it become widely accepted as a fundamental right.
• Modern Forms: The UK primarily operates as a representative democracy, with elements of direct democracy (e.g., referendums).

The different types of democracy:
Democracy in the UK primarily takes the form of representative democracy, with the occasional element of direct democracy. Some other countries, for example the USA, have a presidential democracy, which involves a directly elected leader who governs alongside a representative body, i.e. Congress.

Question 2

Democracy key points

Answer 2

Key points
✚ The UK is a representative democracy.
✚ Before 1918, all women and many men could not vote. Groups such as the Chartists, the Suffragists and the Suffragettes campaigned for change. Today, there are demands for voting rights for prisoners and for 16- and 17-year-olds.
✚ In a healthy democracy, people vote in elections, join political parties and engage politically with important issues. Some fear that modern Britain is experiencing a participation crisis as fewer people are getting involved in politics.

Democracy
- A system of government in which the people have
ultimate power. The term ‘democracy’ means ‘rule by the people’.

Direct democracy:
A system of democracy in which the people make decisions, not the government. Votes take place on specific questions.

Representative democracy
A system of democracy in which people vote for elected representatives. These elected representatives make decisions on the people’s behalf.

Presidential democracy:
A democracy in which the executive (government) is directly elected by the people.

Parliamentary democracy:
A democracy in which the executive is not directly elected by the people. Instead, the executive is formed by whichever party has the greatest support in the legislature (parliament).

Liberal democracies:
Types of representative democracy in which the rule of law is followed, the freedom of citizens is protected by the government and many different political parties compete freely to win power.

Question 3

Features of democracy in the uk:

Answer 3

1. Representation
   • Description: Elected representatives act in the best interests of citizens and ensure their views are effectively represented.
   • Significance: Ensures government reflects public opinion and different viewpoints are heard in decision-making.
   • Limitations: MPs often prioritize party loyalty over individual constituents. Those who did not vote for their MP may feel unrepresented. The first-past-the-post (FPTP) system distorts proportional representation, meaning no recent UK government has secured over 50% of the vote. Raises the question: How far do MPs listen to and represent the views of those who did not vote for them?
2. Participation
   • Description: People engage in politics through voting, joining political parties, supporting pressure groups, or lobbying representatives.
   • Significance: A politically active population strengthens democracy by holding leaders accountable and influencing policy.
   • Limitations: Voter turnout varies significantly by age, with younger people less likely to vote. Standing as an MP or engaging in higher levels of politics is not equally accessible to all—full-time workers, for example, may struggle to campaign. Debates exist over whether voting should be compulsory or if the electoral system should be reformed. Raises the question: Should voting be compulsory? Should the electoral system be changed? Is standing for election truly open to all, including those with full-time jobs?
3. Accountability
   • Description: Elected officials are held responsible for their actions and decisions. If they perform poorly, they can be voted out.
   • Significance: Prevents corruption and abuse of power by ensuring transparency. A government that loses public confidence can be replaced.
   • Limitations: There are frequent allegations of cronyism, corruption, and government cover-ups. Some argue politicians see themselves as above the law. Government decisions are not always transparent, limiting true accountability. Raises the question: Is there a need for more independent scrutiny of government? Do we expect too much from politicians, or do they fail to meet the standards they set for others?
4. Legitimacy
   • Description: Governments and legislatures derive legal authority from free and fair elections.
   • Significance: Ensures public trust in the political system and provides a stable government structure.
   • Limitations: FPTP distorts legitimacy—governments often rule without majority public support. Questions remain about whether certain groups, such as prisoners or 16- and 17-year-olds, should have voting rights. Raises the question: Should 16- and 17-year-olds be allowed to vote in UK general elections? Should prisoners have voting rights?
5. Rule of Law
   • Description: Laws apply equally to all, including government officials. Those who break the law face consequences.
   • Significance: Prevents authoritarian rule and protects individual rights. A key principle of democracy.
   • Limitations: Some argue politicians and officials receive preferential treatment or avoid consequences others would face. Raises the question: Are there double standards in how laws are applied to politicians versus the general public?
6. Elections
   • Description: Regular voting allows citizens to elect representatives or directly decide policies through referendums. Elections should be free, fair, and secret.
   • Significance: Provides democratic legitimacy and ensures government accountability to the people.
   • Limitations: FPTP distorts representation, making smaller parties less competitive. Some argue the UK should switch to a more proportional system. There is also debate over whether voting should be compulsory. Raises the question: Should the UK reform its electoral system?
7. Smooth Transition of Power
   • Description: Power transfers peacefully from one government to another through a formal process.
   • Significance: Maintains political stability and prevents civil unrest. Ensures continuity in governance.
   • Limitations: The Brexit process challenged this principle, as prolonged parliamentary deadlock made many feel the democratic will of the people was being ignored. Raises the question: Do we need a more transparent system for forming a government when no party has a majority?
8. Civil Rights
   • Description: People’s rights are protected and defended by law and the courts.
   • Significance: Safeguards freedoms such as free speech, fair trials, and political participation.
   • Limitations: The UK lacks an entrenched bill of rights, relying on parliamentary statutes that could be repealed. Access to justice is often expensive, limiting fairness. Raises the question: How well does the UK compare to other Western democracies in protecting civil rights?
9. Education and Information
   • Description: Citizens should have access to accurate political information to make informed decisions.
   • Significance: An informed electorate strengthens democracy by enabling better participation and scrutiny of government actions.
   • Limitations: Many news sources are biased, particularly newspapers and social media. Election campaigns often rely on simplified or misleading messages. There are debates over whether more regulation is needed to counter ‘fake news’ and misinformation. Raises the question: Should there be greater regulation of the press and social media to prevent the spread of misinformation?

Question 4

Explain and analyse representative democracy:

Answer 4

Representative Democracy

Representative democracy is the dominant form of democracy in the UK, with regular elections for Parliament and local councils. Citizens vote for MPs or councillors who make decisions and pass laws on their behalf. At Westminster, nearly all MPs belong to political parties, providing voters with a clear idea of their policies. Accountability comes through elections, allowing voters to remove or endorse representatives.

Key Features:
• Representatives have expertise to handle complex decisions.
• They balance competing interests, such as taxation and spending.
• Political parties provide policy clarity for voters.
• More efficient than direct democracy for decision-making.

Representative Government:
• Used in most modern Western democracies.
• Involves national and local elections to legislative assemblies.
• Governments are elected directly (e.g., USA) or indirectly (e.g., UK).
• MPs may follow the delegate model (acting on constituents’ wishes) or the trustee model (using their own judgment, as argued by Edmund Burke).
• Most Western representative democracies are liberal democracies.

Limitations:
• MPs may prioritize party loyalty over constituents.
• Voter apathy can weaken accountability.
• Elections every few years may not ensure immediate responsiveness.

While representative democracy ensures efficiency and expertise, it raises questions about how well MPs truly reflect public will.

Question 5

Explain and analyse Direct democracy:

Answer 5

Direct Democracy

Direct democracy involves people making decisions on policies rather than leaving them to elected representatives. It is rarely used in the UK, except for major constitutional issues, typically through referendums.

Key Examples of UK Referendums:
• 1973 – Northern Ireland: Remain in the UK?
• 1975 – UK-wide: Stay in the EEC (EU)?
• 1979 & 1997 – Scotland & Wales: Introduce devolution?
• 1998 – London: Create an elected mayor & Greater London Authority?
• 1998 – Northern Ireland: Approve the Good Friday Agreement?
• 2011 – UK-wide: Replace FPTP with AV voting system?
• 2011 – Wales: Expand powers of the Welsh Assembly?
• 2014 – Scotland: Independence referendum.
• 2016 – UK-wide: EU membership referendum.

Comparison with Other Countries
• Switzerland has the most extensive direct democracy.
• Citizens can challenge legislation (50,000 signatures within 100 days).
• Propose new laws (100,000 signatures within 18 months).
• Votes have included banning minarets and joining the UN.
• Ireland uses referendums for ethical issues, legalising abortion and same-sex marriage.

E-Petitions in the UK

An alternative form of direct democracy, e-petitions allow public input into government policy:
• 10,000+ signatures → Government response.
• 100,000+ signatures → Consideration for parliamentary debate.

Notable Examples:
• 2019 – 6 million signatures to revoke Article 50 (Brexit).
• 2019 – 1.7 million signatures against prorogation of Parliament.
• 2017 – 1.86 million signatures to stop Trump’s state visit.
• 2007 – 1.8 million signatures against road pricing.

While petitions raise awareness, they rarely change government decisions directly.

Advantages of Direct Democracy

✔ Ensures public participation – People have a direct say.
✔ Decisions have legitimacy – Reflect the will of the people.
✔ Prevents government overreach – Representatives must follow the public’s decision.
✔ Encourages informed debate – People engage with political issues.

Disadvantages of Direct Democracy

✘ Lack of expertise – Public may not fully understand complex issues.
✘ Tyranny of the majority – Can undermine minority rights.
✘ Emotional decision-making – Short-term populism over long-term solutions.
✘ Inefficiency – Frequent voting is slow and expensive.

While direct democracy strengthens legitimacy, it raises concerns about informed decision-making and practical implementation.

Answer 6

Advantages of Direct Democracy

1. It promotes political participation
   Significance: People can participate directly in the decision-making process. This encourages civic engagement and a sense of responsibility among voters.
   Limitation: Engagement can be inconsistent, with people only participating in high-profile issues, leading to sporadic participation rather than consistent involvement in every political decision.
2. It improves accountability
   Significance: Elected representatives or the government cannot ignore the wishes of the people. It provides a corrective mechanism when MPs’ views are out of step with public opinion, such as with Brexit.
   Limitation: In the UK, referendums are advisory, and parliamentary sovereignty means the government is not bound by the results, potentially undermining accountability.
3. It improves political education
   Significance: People can be motivated to become politically well-informed, researching issues before making a rational and considered decision. This fosters a more educated electorate.
   Limitation: The public may not fully understand complex issues, and the quality of political education varies, with many voters lacking the expertise needed to make informed decisions.
4. It enhances legitimacy
   Significance: Decisions have the direct authority and mandate of the people, giving them greater legitimacy. Elections may not fully reflect public views on all policies, but referendums provide direct public input on specific issues.
   Limitation: Low voter turnout can undermine the legitimacy of referendums. For example, if only a small proportion of the electorate participates, the results may not accurately reflect the will of the people.
5. It works
   Significance: Direct democracy, such as referendums or e-petitions, is popular with voters and engages them effectively. High voter turnout, such as 84.6% in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, shows its potential to engage the electorate.
   Limitation: Turnout can still be low in certain referendums, such as the 42% turnout in the 2011 AV referendum, reducing the democratic legitimacy of the outcome.
6. It is often considered to be a ‘purer’ form of democracy
   Significance: Direct democracy allows the whole adult population to have a say, rather than entrusting decision-making solely to elected representatives. It is seen as a more authentic form of democracy.
   Limitation: It is impractical in large, diverse countries where direct decision-making on every issue would be costly and time-consuming, and where people may lack the expertise to handle complex governance matters.

⸻

Disadvantages of Direct Democracy

1. There is a lack of political education
   Significance: The public may not fully understand the issues they are voting on, leading to uninformed or poorly considered decisions.
   Limitation: Elected representatives, with expertise and knowledge, are better placed to analyze and evaluate issues than the general public, ensuring more informed decision-making.
2. Referendums are not binding on the government
   Significance: In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty prevails, so even if a referendum shows clear public support for a specific action, the government is not legally required to follow it.
   Limitation: This undermines the effectiveness of direct democracy, as referendum results may be ignored or overridden by the government.
3. Populist outcomes can prevail
   Significance: Voters may be influenced by emotional or populist arguments rather than rational, long-term thinking. Short-term emotional responses could dominate decisions.
   Limitation: Many sources of information are one-sided or sensationalist, and voters may not critically assess the full implications of their choices.
4. Turnout is often low for referendums
   Significance: Low turnout, such as the 42% in the 2011 AV referendum, can reduce the democratic legitimacy of the results, as the outcome may not accurately reflect the views of the electorate as a whole.
   Limitation: A low turnout undermines the credibility of the referendum results, questioning whether they represent the will of the majority.
5. The majority of people may vote for something that undermines the rights of a minority group
   Significance: This issue, often referred to as the “tyranny of the majority,” can lead to decisions that harm minority rights or interests, which is a core concern for democratic systems.
   Limitation: In a democracy, basic rights and protections should not be subject to majority rule, and this could lead to moral and ethical challenges when the rights of minorities are violated.
6. It is impractical
   Significance: In a large and diverse country, holding frequent referendums or allowing the public to propose legislation could be costly and time-consuming.
   Limitation: If the public were allowed to propose legislation, it could result in contradictory or conflicting demands, such as wanting to lower taxes while also increasing spending on public services, making effective governance challenging.

Question 7

Why are referendums still not examples of direct democracy?

Answer 7

Exam tip
-Do not assume that the UK’s use of referendums makes it a direct democracy rather than a representative democracy. It remains a representative democracy in which MPs are elected to make decisions on the people’s behalf. The increasing use of referendums since 1997 means that the UK has become a more participatory democracy (one in which the public participate actively in decision making).

While referendums increase public involvement, they do not replace the representative system. The UK still prioritizes parliamentary sovereignty, meaning MPs remain the final decision-makers on most matters. This may limit the direct impact of public opinion on policy and governance.

Conclusion: The balance between representative and participatory democracy in the UK allows for a responsive yet stable political system, where public participation can influence decisions without completely shifting to a direct democracy.

Making links
- The UK constitution reflects the importance of representative democracy. Parliament is sovereign, and, since the 1911 Parliament Act, the House of Commons has been able to overrule the House of Lords. This means that the people’s elected representatives - the MPs - hold sovereign power. The UK constitution reflects the principle of representative democracy. Parliament is sovereign, and since the 1911 Parliament Act, the House of Commons can overrule the House of Lords. This ensures that MPs, elected by the people, hold sovereign power.

Question 8

How suffrage has developed in Britain since 1832

Answer 8

Suffrage Development in Britain Since 1832

The emergence of democracy in the UK began with the Great Reform Act of 1832, which marked the start of a shift from an oligarchic system to a more inclusive form of democracy. Before this, political power was primarily held by a small group of wealthy, male property owners, most of whom were members of the Church of England and often part of the aristocracy. This limited voting population was much smaller than today’s electorate.

The expansion of suffrage in Britain was an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one. Starting with the Great Reform Act, only about 2.7% of the population had the right to vote. Over the next century, suffrage gradually expanded, eventually allowing almost the entire adult population to vote. This change was driven by a series of reforms, and it was arguably inevitable as social pressures for political equality built up.

The transition from an oligarchic system to a democracy was mostly peaceful. However, there were significant protests by popular movements, such as the Chartists (working-class activists) and the suffragettes (women’s rights activists). While many of these protests were nonviolent, some led to outbreaks of violence and civil disobedience, highlighting the tensions that accompanied these shifts.

By the end of the suffrage expansion process, almost all adults, with the exception of prisoners and peers, had gained the right to vote. However, there remain some exclusions:
• People aged 16-17, who can vote only in Scottish and Welsh elections.
• Those who have failed to register (illegally or otherwise).
• Foreign citizens who do not meet specific residency requirements.

Significance and Limitations

Significance: The development of suffrage in Britain represents a gradual yet monumental shift towards political equality. The peaceful nature of this transformation contrasted with the revolutionary changes seen in other countries, marking a unique path toward universal suffrage. The process demonstrated the capacity of the British political system to evolve in response to growing demands for fairness and participation.

Limitation: Although suffrage was expanded, there are still exceptions, such as those who cannot vote due to age restrictions, criminal status, or citizenship status. The historical exclusions, like the limited voting rights of women and the working class, highlight that full equality in political participation has taken time and continues to be an evolving issue.

USEFUL CONCEPTS
Oligarchy
A political system in which power lies in the hands of a few, a privileged elite, not the great mass of the population.

Enfranchised
Given the right to vote.

Conclusion: The development of suffrage in Britain since 1832 is a testament to the country’s ongoing journey toward a more inclusive democracy. While much progress has been made, the process also reveals the complexities and challenges inherent in achieving true universal suffrage.

Question 9

Timeline of the universal suffrage in the uk:

Answer 9

Certainly! Here’s the text with the same wording, but reorganized to present it clearly:

⸻

Suffrage Act and Date Introduced

Great Reform Act 1832
• The Act was passed by the Whig government of Lord Grey.
• One in five male adults could now vote. This comprised 5.6% of the total population.
• It abolished ‘rotten boroughs’ such as Old Sarum. These were constituencies that had almost no voters but dutifully elected two MPs every election.

Second Reform Act 1867
• The Act was passed by the Conservative government of Benjamin Disraeli.
• It was much bigger in scope than the Great Reform Act.
• It allowed many working-class men in cities to vote, doubling the size of the electorate. Roughly one-third of all men could now vote.
• It retained a difference in the franchise between the cities (boroughs) and countryside (counties).

Third Reform Act 1884
• The Act was passed by William Gladstone’s Liberal government.
• It established a uniform franchise across the country for men.
• All working men who met a property qualification could now vote.
• A total of 40% of adult men were still excluded, mainly working-class men in rural counties.

Representation of the People Act 1918
• This was a product of the social and political changes caused by the First World War.
• It was passed by the David Lloyd George wartime coalition government.
• All men over the age of 21 (or 19 for veterans) could vote.
• Women over 30 who met the property qualification could now vote.

Representation of the People Act 1928
• The Act was passed by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative government.
• Women finally received the vote on equal terms to men.
• All men and women over 21 could now vote.
• Property qualifications were removed.

Representation of the People Act 1969
• The Act was passed by Harold Wilson’s Labour government.
• The voting age was lowered to 18.

Significance and Conclusion

The extension of the franchise in Britain was a gradual process, with each Act marking a significant step towards a more inclusive democracy. Notably, several of these reforms were passed by Conservative governments, which reflects the principle of “reform to preserve,” a conservative idea associated with Edmund Burke. This underscores the ideological flexibility of the Conservative Party, as it worked to expand suffrage while maintaining social stability.

Importantly, while the Representation of the People Act 1918 is often simplified as granting women the vote, it only extended suffrage to women over 30 who met certain property qualifications. It wasn’t until the 1928 Act that women received voting rights on equal terms with men, highlighting the nuanced and complex nature of the suffrage movement.

Further democratic reforms were introduced alongside suffrage expansion, such as the secret ballot (1872), the ban on voter bribery (1883), and the redrawing of constituency boundaries (1885). These measures helped to enhance the overall fairness and integrity of the electoral system.

Question 10

Debates regarding universal suffrage:

Answer 10

Debates regarding universal suffrage
Gender
+ Women were traditionally seen as the ‘weaker sex’, both physically and
mentally.
+ They were not considered to have sufficient education or intelligence to be
trusted with the vote.
+ Opponents of women’s suffrage in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries argued that women were too emotional to vote rationally.
+ Traditionalists felt that a woman’s place was in the home, tending to her
family. Politics would distract her.
Class
+ The wealthy elite who held the franchise before 1832 worried that their power would be reduced if people from other classes had the vote.
+ There were fears that working-class men were too poorly educated to
understand political issues.
+ Some feared the working class would support socialism, threatening the
economic welfare of other classes.
+ The contribution and sacrifice of working-class men during the First World War meant that denying them the vote could no longer be justified.
Ethnicity
+ There were (and are) no ethnic qualifications for voting in the UK.
+ People of colour have historically been underrepresented in Parliament.
+ Black and Asian voters were less likely than the general population to
register to vote in 2019.
Age
+ Younger people were not seen as having sufficient political education, independence or maturity. People aged 18 to 20 years old only received the vote in 1969.
+ Young women aged 21 to 29 were denied the vote in 1918, despite their contribution to the war effort. They were considered more emotional and unstable than older women.
+ Today, there is a campaign to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. + 16- and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote in the 2014 Scottish
independence referendum, as it was recognised that the referendum result would affect the rest of their lives. They had a higher turnout than 18- to 24-year-olds.
+ 16- and 17-year-olds can vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament and local councils, and for the Welsh Parliament (Senedd).
+ The Labour Party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party all support the Votes at 16 campaign, as does the Electoral Reform Society.

Question 11

CASE STUDY Extending the vote to 18–20-year-olds

Answer 11

Case Study: Extending the Vote to 18-20-Year-Olds

Background
• The decision to extend the vote to 18-20-year-olds was largely a response to social change rather than public pressure or campaigning.
• Since World War II, the status of young people had been shifting, with increasing numbers going on to university, marrying, and renting or buying homes.
• Despite these changes, the law still did not regard them as capable adults.

The Latey Committee
• Set up in 1965 to investigate lowering the age of majority (adulthood) from 21 to 18.
• Its remit included issues like marriage and property ownership, but the report in 1967 also recommended lowering the voting age.
• The report noted that young people were often unfairly perceived, and despite challenges, many demonstrated moderation in their behavior.

Government Response
• The government accepted the findings of the Latey Committee.
• The law was changed in 1969, lowering the voting age to 18.

Social and Political Context
• The change occurred during a decade known for social and political reform, including liberalization in areas like abortion, homosexuality, and capital punishment.

Significance to Democracy
• The extension of the vote to 18-20-year-olds marked a significant shift in recognizing young people as full members of society with the right to participate in democracy.
• It acknowledged the evolving role of younger generations in societal matters, affirming their political agency.
• This case study reflects the broader trend of social change in the 1960s, which saw greater rights and freedoms granted across different demographics, ultimately enhancing the inclusiveness and representativeness of British democracy.

Question 12

Debates regarding universal suffrage: Chartists and the class dimension

Answer 12

Chartists and the Class Dimension

In the aftermath of the Great Reform Act 1832, which failed to extend voting rights to the working class, the Chartists emerged as a political reform group advocating for major changes. Their goal was to transform Britain into a full democracy, particularly for men, by demanding the adoption of the Six Points of the People’s Charter:
1. Universal male suffrage, regardless of wealth or property.
2. Secret ballot for voting.
3. Annual parliamentary elections (reduced to 5 years in 1911).
4. Equally sized constituencies.
5. Paid Members of Parliament.
6. Abolition of the property qualification for MPs.

Key Leaders and Tactics
• Key figures: William Lovett, Francis Place, and Feargus O’Connor led the movement.
• Female Chartists, such as Susanna Inge and Anne Walker, campaigned for women’s suffrage.
• Tactics: The Chartists submitted three “monster petitions” in 1839, 1842, and 1848, collecting up to 6 million signatures, although some were forged. Despite the petitions, parliament rejected them, dominated by the landed aristocracy.
• Violence: The movement faced violent suppression from authorities, especially after the 1848 petition failed.

Impact and Legacy
• Short-term failure: All demands, except for annual elections, were eventually achieved.
• Long-term significance: The Chartists’ efforts influenced later political movements like the Reform League, which pressured the government to pass the Second Reform Act 1867.
• Political critique: The Chartists fought against the dominance of the wealthy elite in politics, criticizing the lack of support for the poor, high taxes on essentials, and poor living conditions.

Class and Elite Opposition
• Aristocratic fears: The wealthy elite feared that extending the vote to working-class men would:
• Challenge their political control.
• Empower the working class to redistribute wealth.
• Result in political instability, similar to the French Revolution.
• Threaten Britain’s global position and economic power.
• Class dynamics before 1832: Before the Great Reform Act, the franchise was mainly restricted to the upper classes, especially the landed gentry. The elite feared that granting the vote to other classes, especially the working class, would reduce their own power and influence.
• Fears of political ignorance: There were widespread concerns among the wealthy elite that working-class men were too poorly educated to make informed political decisions. The aristocracy believed that this lack of education would lead to unwise voting choices, threatening the stability of the nation.
• Economic fears: The upper classes were concerned that the working class would support socialist ideologies, which could undermine the economic welfare of other classes, redistribute wealth, and challenge the established economic system.
• Post-World War I shift: The contribution and sacrifice of working-class men during the First World War played a significant role in shifting public opinion. Their involvement in the war made it increasingly difficult to justify denying them the right to vote, as they had demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to the nation.

Significance of the Chartist Movement
• The Chartist movement marked an important chapter in the fight for universal suffrage in Britain, advocating for structural changes that later contributed to the development of a more inclusive democracy.
• Their demands laid the groundwork for future reforms, though the Chartists themselves were unable to see their vision fully realized in their time.

Limitations and Conclusion
• Limitations: The movement’s failure to achieve all its goals initially, particularly the call for annual elections, shows the resistance to change from the elite. Additionally, the Chartists’ calls for radical reform were overshadowed by fears of social unrest and political upheaval.

Methods
+ The Chartist movement was set up after the
Great Reform Act 1832.
+ They campaigned for votes for all men over 21, secret ballots, no property qualifications for MPs, pay for MPs, equal-size constituencies and yearly elections to parliament.
+ The movement presented three petitions signed by millions to parliament.

Significance:

+ All three petitions were rejected by parliament.
+ Authorities dealt harshly with unrest provoked by
the rejection of the petitions.
+ The movement lacked a single leader and
struggled to co-ordinate different groups across the nation.
+ Some Chartists called for violence, which
caused many middle-class supporters to leave the movement, resulting in less money for campaigning.
+ The movement died out, but the Second and Third Reform Acts were passed in 1867 and 1884.
+ Today, all the Chartists’ aims have been met apart
from yearly elections.

• Conclusion: The legacy of the Chartists is significant in that it represented one of the first organized movements advocating for universal suffrage, and although their immediate goals were not fully realized, they helped set the stage for later democratic reforms in Britain. The growing recognition of the working class’s role in society, particularly after World War I, was crucial in moving toward the realization of the Chartists’ vision.

Question 13

Debates regarding universal suffrage: Suffragists and suffragettes and the gender dimension

Answer 13

Suffragists and Suffragettes: The Gender Dimension

Once a majority of men had gained the vote, the focus shifted to women. The women’s suffrage movement began in the 1860s, with demands for women to be treated equally to men in politics, employment, education, and marriage. Two main groups emerged: the Suffragists and the Suffragettes.
• Suffragists (1897): Formed by the merger of several groups, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) advocated for women’s suffrage through peaceful, constitutional means. Under the leadership of Millicent Fawcett, the movement focused on petitions, meetings, and lobbying. By 1914, the movement had 100,000 members and aimed to push for gradual reform.
• Suffragettes (1903): Led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Sylvia and Christabel, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) took a more militant approach. Their tactics included chaining themselves to railings, disrupting public meetings, and engaging in criminal activities like arson. When imprisoned, suffragettes often went on hunger strikes, leading the government to pass the Cat and Mouse Act to prevent martyrs by force-feeding them. The most famous incident occurred in 1913 when Emily Davison was trampled by the king’s horse at the Epsom Derby, attempting to attach a suffragette banner.

Key Arguments for Women’s Suffrage
• Women are the intellectual equals of men and should be able to vote.
• Women pay taxes and obey laws, just like men, but they cannot participate in electing the government.
• Women could already vote in local elections and hold offices such as mayors, while also becoming professionals like doctors and teachers.
• As wives and mothers, women made vital contributions to the nation.
• With the extension of suffrage to men in 1867 and 1884, women were the only group excluded from the franchise.

Opposition to Women’s Suffrage
• Separate Spheres: Traditional beliefs held that politics and the military were areas suited to men, not women.
• Women were seen as too emotional to make rational decisions in politics.
• Opponents believed politics would distract women from their primary role as wives and mothers.
• Critics argued that women could not make the ultimate sacrifice of serving in war.
• The actions of the suffragettes, including militant tactics, were used to justify arguments that women were unfit for political responsibility.

Success and Legacy
• The suffrage movement saw quicker success than other political movements like the Chartists. Most women gained the vote in 1918, with full suffrage granted in 1928.
• Women’s Contribution in WWI: Women’s critical role during the war, particularly as munitions workers, played a significant part in gaining the vote. The change in leadership also contributed to the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1918.

Limitations in Political Representation
• While women gained the vote, political representation was slow to follow. The first female MP, Nancy Astor, was elected in 1919, and Margaret Thatcher became the first female prime minister in 1979.
• It wasn’t until 1997 that women’s representation in Parliament began to rise significantly, and even today, women remain underrepresented in Westminster.

Gender and the Opposition to Women’s Suffrage
• Women were traditionally seen as the “weaker sex,” both physically and mentally, and were not believed to possess the intellectual capacity to vote.
• Many feared that women would not vote rationally, being too emotional to engage in the political process effectively.
• The notion that women’s place was in the home further limited their participation in politics, as critics argued that politics would distract them from domestic duties.
• Some believed that women would “take over” politics due to their greater numbers in the electorate.

Suffragists (1860s-1918)

Methods
+ Suffragists had campaigned for the vote since the 1860S.
+ In 1897 they formed the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS).
+ Suffragists campaigned for the vote using
peaceful constitutional methods (e.g. petitions, speeches, marches and letter-writing).

Significance
+ Despite decades of campaigning, women were no closer to getting the vote by 1903, which resulted in the formation of the Suffragettes.
+ The NUWSS had more than 100,000 members by
1914.
+ Leader Millicent Fawcett said their movement was like a glacier, slow-moving but unstoppable’.

Suffragettes (1903-14)

Methods:
+ Frustrated with the Suffragists’ lack of
progress, Emmeline Pankhurst formed a rival organisation, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), in 1903.
+ Suffragettes used militant methods including window breaking, chaining themselves to railings and arson.
+ Suffragettes received harsh prison sentences, which they attempted to reduce by hunger striking.
+ Emily Davison was killed in 1913 when she intercepted the king’s horse at the Derby.
+ Leader Christabel Pankhurst went into hiding
in France to avoid arrest.
+ The movement called off their campaign when
war broke out in 1914.

Significance
+ Suffragettes were dealt with harshly by the police and the government, including being force-fed in prison.
+ They attracted national attention and coverage in
newspapers.
+ They were criticised by the Suffragists for using
increasingly extreme methods.
+ The government refused to ‘give in’ to violence.
+ Many key supporters left the movement in protest over the arson campaign; membership numbers and funding fell.
+ Some argue that women won the vote in 1918 through their war service, not because of the Suffragettes.
+ It is likely that the government was eager to avoid a return to violence when they enfranchised women in 1918.

Limitations:
The suffrage movement marked a crucial milestone in first-wave feminism, fighting for equal political rights for women. Despite gaining the vote by 1918, gender equality in political representation remained a challenge. The election of female MPs and the eventual appointment of a female prime minister demonstrated progress, but full gender parity in politics took much longer to achieve. The suffragists and suffragettes laid the groundwork for ongoing efforts toward women’s equality in politics and leadership roles, though barriers remained well into the 20th century.

Synoptic Link
The activities of the suffragists and suffragettes are a prime example of first-wave feminism, which sought equal political rights for women. This movement is essential to understanding feminism as a political ideology, especially in relation to women’s rights and political participation.

Question 14

Debates regarding universal suffrage: ethnicity

Answer 14

Alongside class and gender, ethnicity has played significant roles in the history of voting rights in the UK. Unlike the USA, where systematic racial exclusion through the Jim Crow laws severely restricted the voting rights of African Americans, the UK has never had such laws. However, minority ethnic groups have historically been underrepresented in British politics.

Ethnicity and Voting Rights
• No Ethnic Qualifications: The UK has never had official ethnic qualifications for voting. However, people from minority ethnic groups have historically been underrepresented in the political sphere.
• Underrepresentation in Parliament: It wasn’t until 1987 that the first people of colour were elected as Members of Parliament (MPs) in a fully democratic UK. While the 2019 Parliament was the most diverse yet, with around 10% of MPs from a minority ethnic background, challenges remain. According to the Electoral Commission’s 2019 report, 25% of Black voters and 24% of Asian voters had not registered to vote in Great Britain.
• Pressure Groups: Organizations like Operation Black Vote are working to address this issue by focusing on increasing voter registration and turnout among ethnic minorities. They also promote racial justice and equality across the UK.

Question 15

Debates regarding universal suffrage: age

Answer 15

Age and Voting Rights
• Historical Exclusion of Younger Voters: Historically, younger people were not considered to have the political education, maturity, or independence to vote. For example, 18- to 20-year-olds only gained the right to vote in 1969. Similarly, young women aged 21 to 29 were denied the vote in 1918, despite their significant contribution during the First World War, as they were considered too emotional and unstable to vote responsibly.
• Votes at 16: More recently, the debate has centered around allowing 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote. This argument is based on the fact that young people already carry several rights and responsibilities, such as:
• Paying income tax and National Insurance
• Obtaining tax credits and welfare benefits
• Consenting to sexual relationships and marriage
• Becoming a company director
• Joining the armed forces
• Successful Inclusion in Scotland: The 2014 Scottish independence referendum allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, and they turned out in higher numbers than those aged 18 to 24. Currently, 16- and 17-year-olds can vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament, local councils, and the Welsh Parliament (Senedd).
• Political Support for Votes at 16: Several political parties, including the Labour Party, Scottish National Party (SNP), Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, and Green Party, have supported the Votes at 16 campaign. The Electoral Reform Society also backs this initiative, advocating for extending voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds across the UK.

Question 16

Suffrage as a Human Right

Answer 16

Suffrage as a Human Right

Historically, suffrage in the UK was seen as a privilege to be earned, largely based on ownership of land and property, and it was reserved exclusively for men. It was only in the twentieth century that suffrage began to be regarded as a fundamental human right. This shift was largely driven by the global recognition of universal suffrage, supported by human rights documents.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stated in Article 21 that everyone has the right to take part in government either directly or through freely chosen representatives. It also emphasized that elections should be periodic, genuine, and held by universal and equal suffrage, with voting being secret. This principle has been adopted by other human rights frameworks, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), solidifying votes for all citizens as a cornerstone of global democracy.

In the UK, universal suffrage has largely been in place since 1928, although debates remain over extending suffrage to 16- and 17-year-olds and prisoners. The most notable case in relation to prisoners’ voting rights is Hirst v UK (2005), in which John Hirst, a convicted prisoner, challenged the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting. Hirst argued that this ban violated his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which had been incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the ban was unlawful and violated Article 3 of the First Protocol of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to vote.

Despite this ruling, the UK government resisted compliance. Prime Minister David Cameron famously expressed his strong opposition, claiming the idea made him “physically sick.” Over time, the government proposed a limited compromise, allowing prisoners on temporary licence to vote, affecting around 100 prisoners at any given time.

Key Points on Suffrage as a Human Right:
• 2005 ECtHR Ruling: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying all prisoners the right to vote violated human rights in the case of Hirst v UK.
• Hirst v UK (2005): John Hirst, serving a manslaughter sentence, argued that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting breached the Human Rights Act 1998. The UK High Court initially dismissed the case, but the ECtHR ruled in Hirst’s favour.
• Government Resistance: Despite the court’s ruling, the UK government, under Prime Minister David Cameron, resisted implementing the ruling, with some ministers expressing strong opposition to prisoners voting.
• Pressure Groups: Groups such as the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust have campaigned for the UK government to adhere to the court’s decision and allow prisoners to vote.
• Limited Compromise: In 2017, the Conservative government proposed a compromise, granting the vote to prisoners on temporary licence, but only around 100 prisoners would be affected at any one time.
• Scottish Legislation: In 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation allowing prisoners serving 12 months or less to vote, marking a significant shift in how prisoner voting is treated in different parts of the UK.

Question 17

DEBATE Should prisoners in the UK have the right to vote?

Answer 17

Should prisoners in the UK have the right to vote?

YES - Voting is a Fundamental Right
1. Voting is part of civic responsibility and removing it makes rehabilitation harder.
• Significance: Voting can help prisoners feel connected to society, fostering a sense of responsibility and encouraging rehabilitation. The act of voting reaffirms their role as active citizens.
• Limitation: This argument might be viewed as idealistic, as not all prisoners may view voting as part of their rehabilitation process, especially those incarcerated for serious offenses.
2. Voting is a fundamental right that cannot be removed.
• Significance: Voting is an inherent human right as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights. Denying prisoners the right to vote could be seen as violating these universal principles.
• Limitation: Some might argue that rights can be suspended based on actions, such as committing a crime, particularly those of a violent or severe nature.
3. There is no evidence that taking away the vote acts as an effective deterrent.
• Significance: There is little empirical data supporting the idea that stripping prisoners of the right to vote acts as a deterrent to crime. This suggests the punishment is more about retribution than prevention.
• Limitation: The absence of evidence doesn’t necessarily imply no effect; there could be underlying, less measurable impacts on behavior.
4. Removal of the vote makes a prisoner a non-person and alienates them further from society.
• Significance: Disenfranchising prisoners can lead to greater feelings of alienation and detachment, hindering reintegration into society after their release.
• Limitation: Some argue that a prisoner’s role as a member of society should be diminished due to their actions, which justify such disqualification.
5. The ECtHR has ruled against a blanket ban, so the UK government must honour its commitment to abide by the court’s rulings. The rule of law applies.
• Significance: The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling reflects the importance of upholding legal principles and ensuring that the UK adheres to its international obligations, reinforcing the credibility of the legal system.
• Limitation: Some critics argue that the ECtHR’s rulings can overstep national sovereignty and impose decisions not aligned with the UK’s specific values or legal tradition.

⸻

NO - Prisoners Should Not Have the Right to Vote
1. Those who commit serious crimes against society should lose the right to have a say in how that society is run. Rights come with responsibilities.
• Significance: This argument emphasizes the idea of reciprocity, suggesting that citizens who break the law should lose some of the rights that come with being a member of society. It reinforces the notion of accountability.
• Limitation: The rights of all citizens, including those incarcerated, are part of the social contract. Some would argue that suspending all rights, such as voting, might be excessive and damaging.
2. Losing the vote serves as another deterrent against law-breaking.
• Significance: The removal of the vote could act as a further deterrent, sending a message that committing crimes leads to the loss of key rights, reinforcing law and order.
• Limitation: There is no strong evidence that this leads to less crime or recidivism, so the deterrent effect might be overstated.
3. Prisoners are concentrated in certain constituencies that have large prisons, yet are not normally permanent members of those communities so should not play a part in selecting MPs for such areas.
• Significance: This point is based on the idea that prisoners do not have the same vested interests in local communities as those who are permanent residents. They may be less informed about the local context or have less of an enduring stake in the community’s future.
• Limitation: This could be seen as overly simplistic. Some prisoners may be from these constituencies and will return there after serving their sentences, meaning they should have a say in decisions that affect their home.
4. Public opinion is strongly against such a change. It undermines parliamentary sovereignty.
• Significance: Public opinion plays a significant role in democratic decision-making, and if a large portion of the population opposes prisoner voting, it could be argued that the government should reflect this in its policies.
• Limitation: Public opinion can be influenced by emotion rather than reason, and it may not always reflect the best interests of democracy or human rights.
5. The ECtHR ruling and its interpretation of the ECHR goes far beyond the original intent of its framers. It is a classic example of judicial overreach.
• Significance: This view suggests that the ECtHR is extending its mandate too far, overstepping the boundaries of its authority by influencing national sovereignty in ways not originally intended by the framers of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Limitation: Judicial overreach can be subjective, and international human rights law is designed to protect fundamental rights, which may sometimes clash with national perspectives or interests.

⸻

Which Argument is More Convincing?

The YES argument is more convincing, especially when considering the broader principles of human rights and democracy. Voting is a fundamental right that should not be contingent on one’s behavior, as outlined by key international human rights frameworks like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights. The Hirst v UK ruling reinforces that denying prisoners the right to vote violates these conventions.

Furthermore, stripping prisoners of the vote could alienate them further, undermining their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This approach ultimately fails to promote restorative justice and instead leans towards retribution, which might be counterproductive.

However, public opinion and sovereignty concerns are significant, and the issue remains complex. It’s also worth noting that the impact on crime deterrence and community representation could be factors worth weighing. But overall, ensuring that all citizens retain the right to vote aligns with democratic principles and human rights, making the YES position more compelling.

Question 18

Explain traditional forms of participation compared to modern forms of participation:

Answer 18

Forms and Patterns of Participation in Politics

Traditional Forms of Political Participation:
• Voting in national, local, regional elections, and referendums
• Membership in political parties, attending meetings, and campaigning
• Standing as a candidate in elections
• Joining a pressure group
• Writing letters to MPs and councillors
• Participating in marches and strikes

Recent Forms of Political Participation:
• Signing e-petitions
• Following, retweeting, and liking political posts on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook
• Organizing and participating in protests, like Black Lives Matter, through social media
• Boycotting goods and businesses for political or moral reasons

Criticism of Social Media Participation:
• Social media participation can be seen as minimalist engagement, often described as “slacktivism,” which requires little effort or commitment.
• Online political discourse can be abusive and aggressive, undermining meaningful debate.
• Twitter bots and other software can distort the true level of support for causes or politicians by automating actions like tweeting, retweeting, and liking.

Significance:
• Traditional participation forms are integral to democratic processes and governance.
• Social media has democratized political participation, making it more accessible and widespread.
• However, slacktivism poses a risk of disengagement or superficial involvement, while online toxicity and bot manipulation undermine the authenticity of digital participation.

Limitation/Conclusion:

While new forms of participation, especially through social media, have broadened political engagement, they can lack the depth and impact of traditional forms. The effectiveness of social media engagement is also undermined by problematic online behaviors, raising questions about the quality of participation in the digital age.

Question 19

Is There a Political Participation Crisis in the UK?

Answer 19

Concerns have been raised about a crisis in political participation in the UK, with signs of declining engagement across various forms of political activity and growing political apathy. Evidence often cited includes:
• Voter turnout in elections: A steady decline in voter turnout has been observed, particularly in certain elections, which suggests less public engagement.
• Membership of political parties: Political party membership has significantly decreased in recent years, reflecting diminishing grassroots political involvement.
• Growing volatility among voters: Voters are becoming less predictable, with increased swings in voting patterns and a tendency for people to change party allegiance more frequently.

These trends have been exacerbated by events such as:
• Scandals like the MPs’ expenses scandal: This damaged trust in politicians and disillusioned the public with political institutions.
• The prolonged Brexit debate: The lengthy and contentious discussions over Brexit from 2017 to 2020, alongside debates over potential deals, have contributed to disillusionment, as many viewed the process as chaotic and damaging to national unity.

Overall, these factors suggest a growing disengagement from traditional political processes and institutions.

Question 20

Participation crisis: voter turnout

Answer 20

Participation Through Voting

Voter turnout in the UK has generally been lower in recent elections compared to historical levels. From 1945 to 1992, turnout typically exceeded 75%, reaching 84% in 1950. However, turnout in the 2019 general election was 67.3%, a 1.5 percentage point decrease from 2017 (68.8%). Despite this drop, the 2019 turnout was the second-highest since 1997. However, turnout in other elections has been much lower:
• 2019 European elections: 37% (up from 34% in 2014)
• 2018 local elections for unitary councils: 33% (down from 37% in 2017)
• 2016 police and crime commissioner elections: 27% (up from 15% in 2012)
• 2016 Scottish Parliament elections: 56% (up from 50% in 2011)
• 2014 Scottish independence referendum: 85%
• 2011 Alternative Vote (AV) referendum: 42%

These figures show low turnout in many elections, though they don’t conclusively indicate a consistent downward trend. Turnout tends to be higher for issues that deeply engage the public, such as Scottish independence and Brexit, where passions on both sides fuel greater participation.

Age groups:
—
There is also a noticeable age-related gap in turnout. Older voters are more likely to vote, with turnout in 2019 ranging from 47% among 18- to 24-year-olds to 74% among those over 65. This gap widened from 2017 when the figures were 54% and 71%, respectively. However, these figures only cover a sample of voters and should be interpreted cautiously.

Constituency Turnout Variations:
—
Turnout can also vary significantly by constituency. In 2019, the East Dunbartonshire constituency had the highest turnout in the UK at 80%, where Jo Swinson, leader of the Liberal Democrats, lost her seat. In contrast, Kingston upon Hull East had the lowest turnout at 49%. These variations are often geographically concentrated.

Low-turnout constituencies in 2019 were generally located in areas like urban northern England, the West Midlands, the Thames Estuary, and the South Wales valleys. High-turnout constituencies tended to be in southwest and southeast England, often in affluent areas with above-average levels of education and a high proportion of graduates.

Interestingly, turnout in 2017 and 2019 did not significantly correlate with the marginality of constituencies. In fact, 453 out of the 650 constituencies (70%) had been consistently won by the same party over the last four general elections and can be classified as ‘safe seats’. The average turnout in these constituencies (67.1%) was only slightly lower than in the 197 constituencies that changed hands at least once in that period (67.9%).

Conclusion

While voter turnout has seen a decline, particularly in certain elections like the European elections and local elections, it is not necessarily a sign of a participation crisis. Although the overall turnout for general elections fell to 67.3% in 2019, it remains relatively high compared to historical figures, and in some cases, like the Scottish independence referendum, participation can still be extremely high. The gap in turnout between younger and older voters, as well as regional variations, are concerns that need addressing, but high-turnout constituencies and certain issue-based elections show that voter engagement can be substantial when issues resonate. Therefore, while turnout has decreased, it is not necessarily a crisis but rather a fluctuation based on contextual factors such as the political landscape and key issues.

Question 21

Participation crisis: party membership

Answer 21

Participation Through Party Membership

Party membership in the UK has seen a notable decline, as reflected in figures from a 2019 House of Commons research paper. The membership numbers for the major political parties are as follows:
• Labour Party: around 485,000 members
• Conservative Party: 180,000 members
• SNP: 126,000 members
• Liberal Democrats: around 115,000 members
• Green Party (England and Wales): 48,500 members
• UKIP: around 29,000 members
• Plaid Cymru: around 10,000 members

Together, the Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats account for just 1.7% of the electorate, although this is an improvement compared to a low of 0.8% in 2013. Labour saw a membership surge during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but these numbers are still much lower than the figures seen in earlier decades. For example, in the 1950s, the Conservative Party had around 2.8 million members, while Labour had over 1 million members, in addition to the millions of trade union members affiliated with the party.

Although party membership has generally declined, the trend is not necessarily one of terminal decline. Labour experienced significant growth post-2014, and the Conservative Party’s membership decline appears to have slowed. Some smaller parties, such as the SNP and Green Party, have seen an increase in membership in recent years. However, membership trends reflect a broader societal shift, as institutions like churches and trade unions have also seen membership reductions since the 1950s.

Additionally, not all political parties publish consistent or comparable membership data. For example, the Brexit Party had no official membership figures but claimed 115,000 registered supporters in 2019.

Demographics of Party Membership

Party membership is skewed by age and social class. A majority of party members belong to higher social classes (ABC1). In 2019, membership figures suggested:
• 85% of Liberal Democrat members were from higher social classes.
• 65% of UKIP members came from higher social classes.

Age is also a significant factor, with the average age of members across all major parties being above 50. Notably, 53% of current Conservative Party members are aged 60+. In contrast, 18- to 24-year-olds represent only 4% to 6% of the memberships of Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Conservatives. This points to a generational divide in political engagement, with younger people less likely to become formal party members.

Conclusion:
The decline in party membership over recent decades could be seen as indicative of a participation crisis, especially when comparing figures to the mid-20th century. However, the situation is more nuanced. While fewer people are joining political parties, the trend is not unique to politics alone, as churches and trade unions have also seen membership declines. Additionally, some parties, like the SNP and Greens, have seen growth in membership, suggesting that not all parties are experiencing the same decline. Moreover, the rise of alternative forms of participation, such as social media activism, demonstrates that traditional forms of party membership may no longer be the primary way citizens engage politically. Therefore, while the decline in membership may signal reduced engagement, it does not necessarily point to a full-scale participation crisis.

Question 22

Participation crisis: growing volatility among members

Answer 22

Participation and Electoral Volatility

The rise in voter volatility and partisan dealignment reflects growing dissatisfaction with traditional political parties. Voters are increasingly likely to switch between parties, often in response to policies and personalities rather than traditional party loyalties. This phenomenon is significant in light of the decline in the importance of social class as a determinant of voting behavior. People no longer feel compelled to vote along strict party lines, and the rise of smaller parties further underscores this shift. UKIP, the Brexit Party, Green Party, and Independent candidates have all witnessed growth in recent elections. For instance, UKIP and the Brexit Party were successful in the 2019 European elections, and the Green Party gained nearly 200 seats in local elections.

While this shift suggests disillusionment with the Labour and Conservative parties, it does not necessarily point to a full withdrawal from political engagement. Protest votes—those cast for smaller or non-traditional parties—represent a form of political participation, albeit one driven by dissatisfaction. This growing political promiscuity does not imply that voters are disengaged from politics but that they are exploring alternatives.

Significance of Electoral Volatility

Electoral volatility and dealignment are not necessarily signs of a crisis, but rather an indication of a political landscape in flux. Voters are no longer bound by traditional loyalties and are more willing to seek out parties and candidates that align with their evolving views. This shift, driven in part by a declining sense of class-based political identity, has led to an uptick in support for smaller and alternative parties. However, the combined vote share of the Conservatives and Labour in 2019 (75%) still reflects strong party loyalty despite the rise of new political forces.

This shows that while the landscape of political participation is changing, it does not necessarily signal a participation crisis. Protest votes may indicate dissatisfaction but are still a form of engagement.

Conclusion on the Extent of a Participation Crisis

The extent of a participation crisis in the UK is debateable. Evidence of declining voter turnout and falling party membership suggests a weakening of traditional forms of participation. However, the continued engagement of voters in alternative ways—such as protest voting, increased support for smaller parties, and growing political volatility—indicates a shift rather than a full breakdown. The decline in traditional party membership is noteworthy, but the rise in political engagement through other means, such as online petitions and social media activity, suggests that political participation has evolved rather than stagnated.

Ultimately, while traditional forms of political participation like voting and party membership have seen declines, new forms of participation and increased political fluidity suggest that the UK is experiencing a transformation in how citizens engage with politics, rather than a full-scale participation crisis.

Question 23

Is There a Participation Crisis?
Only voter turnout, for and against arguments.

Answer 23

Is There a Participation Crisis?

Participation in political activity is essential for any functioning democracy, and the UK’s current political participation trends have raised questions about whether the country is experiencing a participation crisis. Participation can take many forms, including voting, writing to an MP, joining a political party, protesting, and more. While the UK has seen fluctuations in voter engagement over recent decades, it is important to examine the factors contributing to both the arguments for and against a participation crisis.

Arguments For a Participation Crisis
• Falling Turnout in General Elections: Voter turnout in UK general elections has been on a downward trend. In 1950, over 80% of the electorate voted, but by 2001, this had dropped to a historic low of just 59%. Although the turnout improved in 2017 to 69%, the overall trend still reflects a decline.
• Low Turnout in Some Elections: Some elections, such as the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections, saw a turnout as low as 15% in 2012, which was the lowest turnout in a nationwide election in peacetime. Even in 2016, turnout for these elections was still only 27%. Similarly, the Welsh Parliament (Senedd) elections have never reached 50% turnout since their inception in 1999.

Arguments Against a Participation Crisis
• General Election Turnout Improvement: Turnout in general elections has been improving since 2001, with the 2017 general election seeing a turnout of 69%, the highest since 1997. The 67% turnout in the 2019 general election was still relatively high compared to historical lows and was the second-highest since 1997.
• High Turnout in Referendums: Referendums have seen much higher levels of engagement. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum saw an 85% turnout, while the 2016 EU referendum had a 72% turnout, indicating that when an issue directly affects people’s lives, they are more likely to engage in the political process.
• Selective Participation: The discrepancy in voter turnout across different elections suggests that the electorate is selective in its participation. For instance, voters may turn out in large numbers when the issue is of significant personal interest (e.g., Brexit or Scottish independence), but may be less inclined to participate in elections perceived as less directly impactful.

Conclusion on the Extent of a Participation Crisis

In conclusion, while there are signs of declining participation in some areas (e.g., local elections, PCC elections, and some devolved legislatures), this does not necessarily equate to a widespread participation crisis. Voter turnout in general elections and referendums has seen significant engagement, particularly when important issues are at stake. The rise in selective participation indicates that people are still engaged, but choose when to participate based on the perceived importance of the issue. Therefore, while there are areas where participation is low, it is not accurate to conclude that the UK is in the midst of a full-scale participation crisis.

Question 24

Is There a Participation Crisis?
Only party membership for and against arguments

Answer 24

Party Membership: Arguments for and Against a Participation Crisis

Arguments For a Participation Crisis
• Decline in Party Membership: Since the 1950s, political party membership has seen a significant decrease. The Conservative Party had over 2.5 million members, and Labour had more than 1 million. However, by 2018, Conservative membership had dropped to just 124,000. This stark decline in membership suggests a loss of connection between political parties and the electorate, pointing to a possible crisis in political participation.

Arguments Against a Participation Crisis
• Increase in Membership for Some Parties: While membership has fallen for the larger parties, some political parties have seen significant increases in recent years. Labour’s membership surged, reaching over 500,000 members. Similarly, the Scottish National Party (SNP) experienced a membership boom following the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, with numbers rising to over 125,000 in 2019. By 2021, the Conservative Party’s membership had increased to 200,000 members, and the Liberal Democrats reached over 115,000 members.
• Success of Minor Parties: Minor parties have performed remarkably well in recent years, even without large membership bases. UKIP won the 2014 European Parliament elections and secured 3.9 million votes in the 2015 general election. The Brexit Party won the 2019 European Parliament elections. Additionally, the Green Party achieved its first parliamentary seat in 2010 and had its highest number of councilors in 2021, showing that new and minor parties can still achieve significant success despite relatively low membership.

Conclusion on the Extent of a Participation Crisis in Party Membership

While there has been a clear decline in membership for some major parties, this trend does not necessarily point to a widespread participation crisis. The increase in membership for parties like Labour and SNP, along with the success of minor parties like UKIP, Brexit Party, and the Green Party, suggests that political engagement is not in terminal decline. Instead, it points to a shift in political dynamics, where traditional party membership may no longer be the sole indicator of political participation, but new political alignments and party successes reflect a different, evolving form of engagement. Thus, while party membership has undoubtedly fallen, it is not accurate to claim an overarching participation crisis.

Question 25

Is There a Participation Crisis in UK Politics? Overall argument.

Answer 25

The question of whether the UK is experiencing a participation crisis in politics has sparked significant debate. On one hand, there is evidence to suggest that participation has declined in some key areas, while on the other, new forms of engagement are emerging. Below, the arguments for and against a participation crisis are combined to present a balanced view.

Arguments for a Participation Crisis
• Low Turnout in Elections: Voter turnout in general elections has generally been lower over the past decades. The 2001 general election saw a record low of just 59%, and while there has been some recovery, recent elections like the Police and Crime Commissioner elections have had alarmingly low turnouts, as low as 15% in 2012. Additionally, turnout in the Welsh Parliament elections and some European Parliament elections has been below 50%.
• Political Apathy Among Youth: Young people, particularly those aged 18-24, have shown a marked lack of political engagement, with lower voter turnout and party membership. The fact that this group is less politically engaged than older generations is worrying for the future of democracy, especially as their participation is crucial in shaping long-term political trends.
• Disillusionment with Politicians: Scandals such as the 2009 expenses scandal, the Dominic Cummings affair, and Partygate have left many disillusioned with political figures. These scandals have significantly eroded trust in politicians, leading to a sense of alienation among the electorate, contributing to the overall decline in political participation.
• Rise of ‘Slacktivism’: While the internet has opened new doors for participation, the ease of engaging in political activism online (e.g., liking, sharing, or retweeting posts) has given rise to a phenomenon known as slacktivism. This represents a more superficial form of engagement that may not result in meaningful political action.

Arguments Against a Participation Crisis
• Increase in Pressure Group Membership: While party membership has fallen, the membership of pressure groups has increased, signaling that people are still participating in political processes. These groups allow individuals to engage with specific causes without the need for party affiliation. In fact, pressure groups have experienced strong growth, with some having millions of members, especially in areas like environmentalism and social justice.
• High Turnout in Some Elections: While turnout may have been low in some elections, others, particularly referendums, have seen significant engagement. For example, the 2016 EU referendum saw a 72% turnout, and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum saw 85%. This suggests that when the issue is of significant importance, the electorate is highly motivated to participate.
• Shift to New Forms of Political Participation: Social media and the internet have revolutionized how people engage in politics. Political parties and pressure groups now use these platforms to organize campaigns, coordinate protests, and engage with the public in ways that were not possible before. Online movements such as #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have shown how digital activism can lead to real-world change, especially among younger generations.
• Growth of Social Movements: New, less structured social movements such as Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter have gained significant traction, particularly among young people. These movements focus on direct action and have attracted strong support, proving that many people, particularly the youth, are still committed to political causes—just in non-traditional ways.

Conclusion: A Mixed Picture

While there is certainly evidence of a participation crisis in the UK, especially when considering partisan dealignment, the decline in trade union membership, and low turnout in some elections, there are also signs that political participation is evolving rather than collapsing. Pressure groups are thriving, internet-based movements are more powerful than ever, and high turnout in referendums shows that when people care deeply about an issue, they will participate. Therefore, while traditional forms of participation may be in decline, the emergence of new forms of engagement suggests that the participation crisis may be overstated. Instead, we are witnessing a shift in how people participate in politics, rather than a complete breakdown.

Question 26

Facts on Political Participation Trends

Answer 26

• Partisan Dealignment: This refers to the weakening of the connection between voters and political parties. Voters are increasingly less likely to identify with a particular party, and many have become floating voters who switch between parties depending on the election. This trend is reflected by the sharp decline in political party memberships over the last few decades.

• Trade Union Decline: Trade unions, which once played a significant role in political participation by representing workers’ interests, have seen a massive drop in membership since the 1980s. This decline has diminished their political power and ability to influence policy.

• Pluralism emphasizes a democracy where diverse groups influence decision-making. While traditional party membership has declined, pressure group activity and social movements (like Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion) have increased, reflecting a shift in political participation. This suggests that political involvement is still strong, just not in the traditional form of voting or party membership. Instead, people engage through various interest-based channels, which aligns with pluralist principles of a broader, more diverse democracy.

Question 27

Suggestions for increasing participation.

Answer 27

1. Votes at 16

Advantages:
• Encourages political engagement at a younger age.
• Gives young people a voice in political decisions that affect them.
• Promotes long-term civic involvement.

Disadvantages:
• 16-year-olds may lack the maturity or understanding to make informed decisions.
• It could lead to low voter turnout if younger voters are less engaged.

⸻

2. Online Voting

Advantages:
• Makes voting more accessible and convenient, especially for people with disabilities or those living abroad.
• Could boost voter turnout, particularly among younger voters who are tech-savvy.

Disadvantages:
• Security risks, such as hacking or fraud, could undermine the integrity of elections.
• Digital divide: not everyone has access to the internet or the necessary technology.

⸻

3. Compulsory Voting

Advantages:
• Increases voter turnout, ensuring more people’s views are represented.
• Encourages political awareness and engagement, as individuals must educate themselves about the issues.

Disadvantages:
• Some may see it as an infringement on personal freedom.
• Could lead to uninformed voting or “spoilt” ballots.

⸻

4. Changing the Electoral System (Proportional Representation)

Advantages:
• Ensures that votes are distributed more fairly, especially benefitting minor parties.
• Voters are more likely to feel their vote counts, encouraging turnout.

Disadvantages:
• Can result in fragmented governments and difficulty in forming stable coalitions.
• May encourage extremist parties to gain more influence.

⸻

5. Increasing Political Education in Schools

Advantages:
• Helps young people become more informed about the political system and their role in it.
• Promotes long-term political engagement.

Disadvantages:
• Depends on the quality of teaching, which may not be consistent across schools.
• May not directly translate to increased voting if engagement isn’t sustained.

⸻

6. Reducing Membership Fees for Political Parties

Advantages:
• Makes joining a political party more accessible, especially for people from lower-income backgrounds.
• Could increase party membership and grassroots involvement.

Disadvantages:
• Reducing fees might not be enough to address deeper issues of political disillusionment or party loyalty.
• Could lead to financial strain on political parties that rely on membership fees.

⸻

7. More Direct Democracy

Advantages:
• Increases public involvement in decision-making, allowing voters to have a direct say in important issues.
• Strengthens the connection between citizens and government.

Disadvantages:
• Could lead to decision-making by majority rule, which may not always be in the best interest of society as a whole.
• Logistically difficult to implement on a wide scale, especially in large or complex issues.

⸻

Ranking by Effectiveness:
1. Online Voting – Most effective due to accessibility and convenience, especially for younger, tech-savvy generations.
2. Votes at 16 – Engaging young voters early promotes long-term participation and boosts turnout.
3. Changing the Electoral System – Proportional representation gives more power to smaller parties and ensures fairer representation, likely increasing participation.
4. Increasing Political Education – It provides a long-term solution to political engagement by making citizens more informed.
5. Compulsory Voting – Forces higher turnout but comes with personal freedom concerns and potential for uninformed voting.
6. More Direct Democracy – While empowering, it’s difficult to implement effectively on a large scale and may not be practical for all decisions.
7. Reducing Membership Fees – Accessibility is improved, but it may not directly tackle deeper issues of engagement or trust in political parties.

Question 28

Democracy and participation summary.

Answer 28

SUMMARY

• Democracy means rule by the people. It takes two main forms in the UK: representative and direct democracy.
• Representative democracy is dominant in the UK but direct democracy is occasionally used for key constitutional issues.
• The growth of suffrage in the UK has been largely evolutionary, and mainly took place from 1832 to 1928.
• The main debates over extending the vote covered class and gender.
• Voting has only relatively recently been regarded as a human right. The issue of prisoners’ votes has highlighted debates over this concept.
• Political participation can take many patterns and forms. Voting remains prominent, but participation also involves belonging to a party and being involved in pressure group campaigns.
• Recently, alternative forms and patterns of participation have emerged, most notably using social media and the internet.
• There has been much discussion of a participation crisis in the UK, focusing mainly on turnout, party membership and partisan dealignment.