Exam Questions May 2022: Nature of Democracy Flashcards
Give three features of a representative democracy.
1) Representation - parliament operates under the Burkean (trustee) model - reps. act under their conscience - e.g. Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) voted against Brexit even though her constituency favoured it - voted out in 2019.
2) Accountability - gov. is scrutinised by the people through elections - e.g. 1979 Callaghan gov. blamed for the winter of discontent - led to election of anti-union Thatcher gov. in 1979.
3) frequent elections - e.g. FTPA defines election terms as 5 years - repealed in 2022 - though gov. was able to call a snap election - e.g. 2017.
Give three features of a direct democracy.
1) E-petitions - gain over 100,000 signatures must be considered for debate by the Petitions Committee - e.g. 2019 petition gained over 6 million signatures to revoke Article 50 - allows for greater participation - possibly leads to ‘slacktivism’?
2) . Tyranny of the majority - wherein views of the minority overwhelm those of the minority - e.g. Brexit ref. - 48% remain / 52% leave - questions the legitimacy of government decisions - meaning decisions take longer to be brought about.
3) Referendums - may act as a corrective for politicians - e.g. 479 MPs were in favour of remain - 51% of the electoral were in favour of leave - maintains accountability outside the normal elections cycle.
Give three features of a democracy.
1) Representation - Parliament operate under the Trustee model - act under their own conscience - e.g. Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) - voted remain though her constituency voted remain - voted out in 2019 - links to accountability.
2) Accountability - government should be transparent and free from corruption - e.g. judicial review may highlight gov’s mendacious practices - e.g. R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister - means the judiciary is drawn into political matters - independent judiciary is a requisite of democracy.
3) Legitimacy - secured through frequent and fair elections - though no recent government has secured over 50% of the vote - electorate have the power to defenestrate the gov. if they are unhappy with policy decisions.
Give three reforms that led to the UK becoming a democracy.
1) Great Reform Act 1832 - introduced by the Whig Party under Lord Grey - allowed property owning men to vote - franchise given to 5.6% - significant as it established ‘rotten boroughs’ - e.g. Old Sarum - boroughs with very few voters.
2) Representation of the People Act 1918 - all men over 21 Ould vote and women over 30 (who met property qualification) could also vote - significant as it gave the vote to those the Labour Party sought to capitalise on - e.g. leading to the first labour government of 1924
3) Representation of the People Act 1969 - lowered the voting age to 18 - significant as it came during a period of great social change - e.g. liberalisation in certain areas such as abortion and homosexuality.
Give three reasons direct democracy should be used more widely in the UK.
1) Encourages participation - referendum or e-petition - e.g. record turnout in the Scottish 2014 referendum of 84.6% - performs well in countries such as Switzerland where citizens are more powerful than in a representative democracy
2) Maintains accountability outside elections - e.g. results may provide a useful corrective for MPs - e.g. 479 MPs were in favour of remain whereas 52% of the population were in favour of leave - ensures that the mandate of the electorate is followed.
3) Legitimacy of local decisions - e.g. congestion charge i greater Manchester in 2008 - ‘no won’ - Burnham’s ‘Clean Air Zone’ is facing heavy revolt from the people - referendums prevent policy decisions upsetting voters - results may be used for years to come to guide policy as the mandate likely wouldn’t change.
Give three arguments against wider use of direct democracy in the UK.
1) Less ‘tyranny of the majority’ with representative - e.g. 1997 Wales devolution referendum - 50% turnout, 50% in favour of Wales Assembly - Senedd was created on mandate of 25% of the Welsh population - ultimately in a better place to make decisions.
2) Often higher turnout - e.g. 2015 GE 66.4% turnout compared to the 42.2% with the AV referendum - policy is more legitimate - more likely to be effective and not lamented in the future.
3) Methods of direct democracy may be expensive - ‘all or nothing’ approach means that the money spent could be to no avail - e.g. 2011 AV referendum - £75 million - compared to the 2015 GE - £114,700,000 - though to greater policy change.
Give three ways representative democracy is better than direct democracy.
Representative is better
1) Less ‘tyranny of the majority’ - e.g. Wales Devolution referendum 1997 - Senedd was created on the mandate of 25% of the Welsh population - better to allow elected representatives to make decisions of constitutional matters as they are better suited and trained to make them.
2) Often higher turnout - e.g. 2015 GE was 66.4% compared to the 42.2% for the AV referendum - though the record turnout goes to the 2014 Scottish referendum (84.6%)
3) Lack of education of the topic in question in a referendum - polls before the AV ref indicated only 35% were aware of the current electoral system and the benefit of AV - it is better for elected delegates to make decisions of this nature due to them being properly informed.
Give three ways representative democracy is worse then direct democracy.
Direct democracy is better.
1) Often a more proportional system with direct - FPTP often delivers many ‘wasted votes’ - e.g. 50% of votes cast in the 2015 election went to a losing candidate - direct democracy is the most proportional representing the will of the electorate.
2) Accountability outside the normal election cycle with direct - may act as a corrective - e.g. 479 MPs were in favour of ‘remain’ whereas 52% of the electorate favoured ‘leave’ - also ensures legitimacy of decisions.
3) Representative democracy is typically more expensive - e.g. £114,700,000 in 2015 GE - compared to £75 million in 2011 - though the ‘all or nothing’ approach to refs means the money spent may be to little constitutional change.
