Is Democracy Truly Democracy when Decisions are Binary?

The Ancient Greeks were the first civilisation to employ a political system known as democracy; however, by today’s standards, this system would look dysfunctional. Positions were decided by lot: drawing straws was considered to be the fairest and most reasonable method of allocating roles - to a Greek from classical times, our system would appear barbaric and entirely defunct. When the Romans began to take over as the central power of the Mediterranean, much like most of their society, they inherited their political system from the Greeks. Each aspiring politician needed to be a certain age, and to have completed a certain number of years in lower-ranking roles, in order to apply for the next position; at the top of the political pyramid were the Consuls: two men, one a plebeian (lower-class), and one either of the equites or of the senatores (middle- to upper-class), having served in all of the previous positions and with a minimum age of 42. A Consul could only serve one one-year term, and legally could not take supreme power without committing a crime equatable to treason (excluding loopholes). Within each ranked group, different roles were decided by lot: a hangover from the Greek system.

To a modern audience, this level of chance seems bizarre in a political environment; however, in reality, could it be a fairer option: if voters could not be bribed, or whatever politicians might say would have no effect on their success, would politics truly be more fair - more democratic? Our currently accepted democratic model revolves not only around voting but also around defined political parties: typically right wing vs. left wing. By confining an entire spectrum of political opinion, thought and theory to two options, are we suffocating democracy; could voting individual politicians into power, as opposed to political parties by seat, better represent the (infamous) 'will of the people'? In the general election prior to the EU Referendum, UKIP received more votes than the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats put together - the two parties receiving a combined 64 seats - however, only one seat was won by UKIP. In a similar manner to the party system, this creates a discrepancy between votes and results: is this a corrupted democracy?

How frequently has it seemed impossible to choose either one of the two leading parties: Conservative and Labour? However, rarely has another party risen to the same popularity, almost making any vote outside of these two competitors seem void; in a party-less democracy, such as there was in Ancient Greece and Rome, politicians would (ideally) be voted for on their strength as a politician and on their political beliefs. If politicians were voted for, rather than the party they belonged to, it is arguable that we could attain a stronger parliament, with a less vehement 'us and them' mentality. Despite this, the use of parties in politics can still be proven to be efficient: providing a clear opposition for the party in power, in order that we hear often directly opposing opinions on any given point, this effectively binary system provides us with a black-and-white summary of the matter at hand. However, with a minority government and an opposition which celebrated coming second to a minority government, I doubt that anyone can argue that we currently have an efficient Parliament - democratic or not.

Written by Eva Smith

Conservatives, Labour and who?

Traditionally, Britain has operated under a two-party system whereby two fairly equally matched parties compete for power at elections leaving others with little realistic chance of breaking their duopoly. Since 1924, the two major parties in the UK have been the Conservatives and Labour. Whilst the UK has never witnessed a single-party system as seen in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it has certainly seen a change away from being dominated by just two parties. How many parties exist now?

One system that is argued for by political thinker Paul Fairclough is the regional party system. A system whereby many parties compete for power across the nation with party performance varying in different regions. The arguments for a RPS can be seen by looking at the differences in different regions. Firstly, Northern Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote to elect 18 different MPs, crucially however is the fact that these 18 are almost always either Sinn Fein or the DUP – parties that outside of Northern Ireland gain no seats. Secondly, evidence can also be seen with UKIP who have had success in the European parliament winning 24 seats in the 2014 election beating both Labour and the Conservatives – 20 and 19 respectively – whilst not maintaining that same results in the general election. Thirdly, regional differences are evident with Wales being dominated by Labour and Plaid Cymru compared to the South West of England being controlled by the Conservatives. There is also evidence in the fact that at the 2017 election, the Electoral Commission listed over 500 parties registered to contest including the Yorkshire Party and the Pirate Party, with a huge 28 of those parties securing over 1000 votes. And at the 2010 election, the 2 main parties couldn’t form a majority so a coalition between Cameron’s Conservatives and Clegg’s Liberal Democrats was formed. Can we really argue that just 2 parties control all power?

However, the two-party system can still be seen to exist for many reasons. Firstly, the 2017 General showed a display of dominance by the big two that hadn’t been seen since 1979 with just four parties gaining more than 10 seats. Also, the two main parties, Conservative and Labour won 82.5% of all votes which was an improvement from the 67.2% gained in the 2015 election. Secondly, the mere existence of the Conservative Liberal-Democrat coalition between 2010 and 2015 does little to challenge the two-party system as any coalition partner will inevitably be the minor partner. Thirdly, minor parties such as nationalist or single issue parties soon fall from grace e.g. UKIP who were the third-largest party in 2015 by number of votes, saw their share of the vote reduced from 12.6% to 1.8% and lost their only seat in 2017. The same was seen with the BNP, who had been reduced to a single local councillor and just 500 members by 2016. Finally, whilst parties may register on the Electoral Commission, they do not register on the ‘Electoral Geiger Counter’ and fail to convert votes to seats e.g. the Yorkshire Party in 2017 won 21,000 votes but 0 seats.

On the other hand, there is an argument that Britain has neither a regional party system nor a two-party system but instead a dominant-party system. This system involves a number of parties existing but only one holding government as has been the case in Japan with the Liberal Democratic Party in power nearly every election since 1955. Political scientist Jean Blondel argues this can be seen with 2 parties taking long continuous terms between 1979 and 2010: first the Conservatives and then Labour. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher won 52.5% of votes with a majority of 19.8% giving her a dominant party. Then in the 1983 general election the Conservatives won a majority of 144 and had almost twice as many seats as Labour. Similarly in 1997, Labour had 2.5 times as many seats as the Conservatives. However, the vote share was 43% to 30% and the seat majority was largely due to tactical voting by Labour and Liberal Democrat voters to keep out the Tories. Therefore, it can be seen that it was only temporarily moving towards a dominant party system rather than being permanent. Equally the 2017, ‘confidence and supply’ deal between the Conservatives and the DUP proves that a dominant party system is certainly no longer in play in the UK.

Alternatively, it is possible to say that Britain now has a four party system with Labour and the Conservatives being split into two of their own. Labour is divided into a moderate Social Democratic Party and a more radical left-wing socialist Corbynite Party. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are an uneasy coalition of centrist Whigs and right-wing Tories. The Conservatives’ Whigs and Labour’s Social Democrats both have a more central middle ground e.g. Blair and Iain Duncan Smith who appear to have far more in common with each other than with either Jeremy Corbyn or Margaret Thatcher. For the Conservatives, the split is visible as Brexit negotiations currently take place with Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond pushing for a lenient Brexit whilst Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson is pushing for a hard Brexit. Whilst in the Labour party, the appointment of Tom Watson as deputy leader has caused some splits because he was once a strong anti-Corbyn campaigner. At the 2017, Labour conference in Brighton, 29 of the 30 senior speakers were strong Corbyn supporters which resulted in ‘Labour First’ – a moderate pressure group – complaining the centrists within the party had been silenced, including Sadiq Khan who didn’t get to speak despite holding a powerful position as the Mayor of London. Therefore, with splits emerging in the two dominant parties it is possible to argue that there is indeed a four party system.

Finally, the emergence in recent years of a catch-all party system has been shown with all parties aiming to attract people with diverse political viewpoints in the hope of greater success. This system contains a centre-left and a centre-right party. The entire system is generally centripetal with the two parties adjusting their policies to compete for ‘floating voters’ in the centre ground. Evidence for such a system can be seen with the failures of Labour in 1983 when they moved left, the failures of the Conservatives when they moved right in 1997-2005, the successes of Labour when they moved right and became more centrist in 1997-2010 and finally the success of Cameron’s Conservatives in 2010 when he made the party more centrist to change the party’s image. All of these changes show that parties in the middle generally do better. This is similar in the USA however both parties there moved to the right in the aftermath of the socio-political turmoil and cultural upheaval of the 1960s, and has yet to go back to the left. However, success of UKIP in the 2015 general election would dispel such a system and it cannot be denied that many extremist parties get votes which, thanks to FPTP, are simply not translated into seats. Therefore, we do have elements of catch-all party policy yet this doesn’t entirely define our system.

Ultimately, the UK has elements of both a regional party system and a two-party system. This is down to a mix of the disillusionment index and FPTP. Whilst people vote in a manner similar to a multiparty system with over 500 parties, the reality is that these votes are only transferred into seats in a manner representative of a two-party system. In order for the UK to truly be a regional party system the electoral system would need to be changed to proportional representation, until then, the UK will largely remain as it always has: a two-party system.

Written by Johnny Rampley-Sturgeon

Party Politics. How Big an Issue?

Labour. Conservative. Liberal Democrat. The parties that claim to represent different sections of our society are the very foundation of our democratic political system, providing the people, in theory, with a democratic state in which Demos Kratos is truly valued. However, as the parties compete relentlessly for our support by hurling insults at one another and publicising issues in the private lives of party members (in a poorly disguised smear campaign attempt), we have to consider where our party system started to go wrong.

It could be argued that one of the key reasons for party politics is that the key divides are not so apparent as they were in previous centuries. During the times of the industrial revolution, it was a clear cut divide of those who owned the means of production versus those that toiled for these wealthy yet most likely corrupt individuals. Conservatives were clear supporters of the wealthy production owners, and all policy was centred around allowing, in effect, the rich to become richer. Labour, on the other hand, championed the overworked, underpaid, factory workers, using the support of the trade unions for supporting the worker and narrowing the divide between rich and poor. Two competitors battling it out in the political ring, fighting tooth and nail for control. However, as we approach modern day, this class divide becomes considerably less apparent. The creation of this new ‘Middle Class’ who were concerned about those less fortunate than themselves, complicated things for the ideological divide. There were now people who could vote for either party, and would vote differently each time, depending on policy, not just those who followed one party throughout their entire lives. Further complications came in the form of the increase of other political parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats, who some could definitely see as being the middle ground between both parties. Now the political scene looks more like a race, many competitors in different colours, red and blue quite far ahead but nonetheless still part of this race. These changes in the political system seem to have somehow led to a change in political rhetoric, disintegrating from intelligent political discussions, to personal slants on the opponent, including but not limited to name calling and use of the so called ‘Spin Doctors’ and the media. How can our politicians fail to see that all they are doing is further disengaging the general public from politics, further damaging their bid for office?

There are so many issues brought to the foreground through party politics. The first, most obvious, and almost indisputably important issue is public disengagement. Although, as a general population, we are not averse to a bit of scandal, and we definitely want any key issues highlighted, we do not wish to be informed about each MP’s minor issues. For most, this constant smearing of the opposing party either causes political disengagement as they despair over the entire political system, vowing to ignore it entirely, or it can have the opposite effect to that which was originally desired, in that the public may sympathise with the injured party, and perhaps be more inclined to vote for that party. Through their tactics, they serve to entirely ostracise themselves from the general public, proving that they are extremely out of touch with the growing concerns of modern people in areas such as Brexit. Even those that claim to represent the people fall foul at this hurdle. They may think our simple, uneducated minds cannot handle the intricacies of their policies and aims, but the truth is that this is what we want to hear about as this is why we elect them in the first place. The politicians are becoming so out of touch with the people one could argue that they barely fall inside the category of being representative. We want our country to be in the hands of a party that is sure of itself and is entirely in touch with the general public, not a brawling, screaming crowd of people who do not understand public consensus. If we wanted the latter, we would elect an army of four year olds.

Another key issue would be that this constant cycle of undermining one another serves to completely detract from the important job that these politicians have to undertake. They play a vital role in society, shaping this country and organising nearly every aspect of our lives, from our security to our education. We entrust in them the protection of this country and the role of negotiating and working peacefully with Europe and the rest of the world. We want desperately to trust their capability and to place our faith in them, but with all of this party politics, which can only be described as senseless bickering and name calling, how can we possibly do so with full certainty? The task that they have to undertake is complex and thankless and to be quite frank, party politics degrades the job they have to do and also serves to discolour the intelligence of the people involved. When all we hear are rumours, or smear campaigns, it can be extraordinarily easy for the general public to forget the huge responsibility that the government shoulder each and every day. This, in turn, can have a knock on effect on each party, especially the party who holds government. If people lack faith in the government, we are less likely to take the party seriously, resulting in less voters for the party, perhaps pushing more voters toward the radical parties. People forget the immense job government have to do and so, it seems, does government.

There are a plethora of reasons as to why party politics is warping our political system, not just those listed above, but the reasons given here are compelling enough. Party politics needs to stop, so we can live in a country managed by a group of mature individuals who can engage in political discussion with one another without having it disintegrate into a shouting match about someone’s supposed extramarital affair.

Written by Jess Stoff