Low Levels of Satisfaction in Government
In 2022, a study found just 17% of people in the UK were highly satisfied with the political system. For context, this is only one percentage point more than people in Russia a country which our leaders correctly say is led by a dictator. Fortunately, 64% believe democracy in theory is a very good way of governing, up from 41% in 1999, it therefore appears doubtful the Electorate will seek an anti-democratic alternative in the foreseeable future.
According to a 2023 report by the ONS, the average rating for life satisfaction in the UK for the year ending March 2023 was 7.45 out of 10. The ratings are: 0 to 4 (low), 5 to 6 (medium), 7 to 8 (high), and 9 to 10 (very high). What is the cause of this discrepancy between satisfaction with the government and satisfaction with life? People have more power over their lives than they have over the government. If someone wants to change a part of their life that dissatisfies them, the means are, not always easy, but often clear and possible. On the other hand, if someone wants to change a part of the law that dissatisfies them or prevent a proposed law that dissatisfies them, the means are barricaded. Barricaded because we cannot vote on Bills, we can only vote for MPs to vote on Bills, we cannot submit referendums, we can only vote on referendums the government allows us to vote on. If True Democracy is implemented, people will have more power over the government, as they will be able to vote on Bills, and submit their own referendums. If the Electorate votes for legislation which, through its ill effects, results in widespread dissatisfaction, they may use the Referendum Cycle to correct the legislation. The Electorate may also use referendums to give themselves more political power.
Currently, the people are in a state of helpless reaction towards legislation enacted by the government. True Democracy gives the people a shield against the government’s proposed legislation and a tool to make their own legislation.
Low Levels of Trust in Government
A 2023 study found that 27% of people in the UK have high or moderately high trust in the UK government and 57% have low or no trust in it. 12% of people have high or moderately high trust in the political parties and 68% have low or no trust in them. A report by the National Centre for Social Research found that a record high of 45% now say they ‘almost never’ trust governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party. Low levels of trust in the UK government are not a recent phenomenon, they have been low for decades, as this study shows. The governing party changes, but the current form of democracy remains the same and distrust remains consistently low. A study published in 2023 shows the UK public is one of the most trusting populations globally. 84% trust people of another nationality and 52% trust people they meet for the first time. In 2022, 46% of Britons said “most people can be trusted”, marking a significant increase since 1999, when 29% felt this way – the lowest recorded. Clearly, governments are distrusted because of their own actions, not because the UK public are indiscriminately distrustful.
Trust in government is low for at least these few reasons.
- Worsening wealth inequality: Real wage growth has been slowing since the 1970s, and is 2.7% down compared to 2008. By contrast, real wage growth across the OECD as a whole has risen by 8.8%, on average over the same period. From 1990 to 2022, billionaire wealth has risen from £53.9 billion to £653.1 billion, which is an increase of over 1,100%.
- Broken promises and lies: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer.
- Large donors receiving exclusive access: Labour Party example. Conservative Party example.
- Lobbying: Information provided on ministerial meetings is so scant that it cannot be used to scrutinise the government. As an example, look at the information provided for the ministerial meetings of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The purpose given for each meeting is merely one sentence long. As further proof that they don’t care about transparency, the purpose of the first meeting on the list contains a typo. The purpose given is ‘Roundtable to discuss Smart Mchines’. There may be an explanation for the details of some meetings being confidential, for example if a meeting relates to national security, but there is no justification for all meetings remaining confidential. What justification is there for a meeting about ‘drinking water, performance and pollution’ being confidential? To find the meetings of different government departments you can go to openaccess.transparency.org.uk, because the government made no effort to make this information easy to search, sort, or filter on their own site. Not only are the published details of meetings restricted to one sentence, they are often published quarterly or even later, making them even more useless. What are the public supposed to do with such information as there being a meeting with BP ‘to discuss energy’? What else would an energy company be discussing with the government? The information is useless on purpose, because they want to prevent scrutiny. The meetings recorded are only a fraction of the meetings that take place between the government and lobbyists. Only officials in the top two levels of government—ministers, secretaries, and the leaders of the House of Commons and House of Lords—report their meetings activity, while lobbyists likely have more meetings with lower-level employees. Thus, there may be a large number of meetings between government officials and lobbyists that are not reported—and are not required to be. Opposition parties are not required to declare their meetings with lobbyists. Consultant lobbyists, those who lobby on behalf of a third party client, must join the Register of Consultant Lobbyists. However, in-house lobbyists, those who are employed to lobby directly for their employer, are not required to join the register, although their work makes up around 85% of lobbying.
Under True Democracy, trust in government will increase for the Electorate, as they will not be merely electing the governing party as they currently do once every few years, they will permanently be part of the government. However, this is not a promise that every member of the Electorate will be satisfied with the outcome of every vote. After all, among them are differing interests and views. Differing interests and views because of differing occupations, experiences, educations, etc.
Despite these differences, the Electorate still have more reasons to trust each other under True Democracy than they have to trust MPs under our current democracy. The decisions of the Electorate will not be influenced by wealthy donors, corporate lobbyists and party whips, whereas MPs are. Instead, their decisions will be influenced by their own experiences, educations, those they discuss politics with, and, I hope, by those with expertise on whichever matter is at hand.
Members of the Electorate have a greater stake in the outcome of legislation than MPs do. The Electorate are more reliant on public services than MPs are. If the government declares war, it will be the Electorate that must fight. (Currently, under Royal prerogative powers, the Government can declare war and deploy armed forces to conflicts abroad without the backing or consent of Parliament.) If a change in law should hurt the economy, it is the Electorate that faces the brunt of it, they will not be protected like MPs as they receive salaries three times larger than the national average and they are allowed second jobs whilst in Parliament.
Can True Democracy be trusted to not result in a tyranny of the majority? There is reason to believe it is more trustworthy than our current form of democracy. There is nothing intrinsic to representative democracy that protects minorities. Protection against discrimination and protection of human rights is provided by the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act. The Tories have threatened multiple times to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and replace the Human Rights Act. If the Tories or any other party wants to, they can remove the UK from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act without the Electorate’s consent, and they can replace it with a new act without the Electorate’s consent. Whereas if the government tried to repeal either act under True Democracy, they would require the consent of the Electorate. There is reason to believe the Electorate would likely protect these Acts. An EHRC survey shows 74% of Britons agree there should be equality for all groups in Britain and an Ipsos survey shows 80% of Britons agree it’s important to have a law that protects human rights in Britain. Under representative democracy, the majority live under a tyranny of the minority, that minority being the governing party and their financial backers. We elect a minority for five years and then have no power over them until the next election when we have the privilege of choosing a new tyrant. A party has not received a majority of votes in a UK general election since 1931.