Kevin Choi
How is voter apathy adversely affecting UK Politics?
A key cornerstone of British democracy, voting is considered one of the fundamental rights of
citizens. Long the preserve of the aristocracy and rich, British Government became the tool of
the people under the Representation of the People Act 1832. Giving common people the vote,
this act gave the people who were being rules their own power to change their world. Over
the next century, many more would fight for the vote, including the poor and women. Finally,
in 1928, all adults in the United Kingdom had the right to vote and choose their Government.
The struggle for the vote has been well documented in many forms; the Suffragettes
illustrating the lengths to which some would go for their right to vote.
Eighty-three years after the vote was given to all adults, the 2001 general election should have
been a jubilant celebration of the power of the people. Yet it wasn‟t, and it actually
showcased the lowest turnout since 1918, with a measly 58% of the registered voting
population actually turning out to cast their votes. It seems ridiculous that after years of
struggle, people are actually giving up their vote, and not taking action to improve their
situation. Many have stipulated that it is a sign of changing times, where people no longer
think or care about what their government does for them. Popular culture now seems content
to deal with what diktats get handed down to them, and automatically assume that those in
power have debated the issues through. Citizens now are becoming complacent, irking their
responsibilities and simply believing that everything will be alright. The 2001 elections were
a clear demonstration of this mindset, and the effect of voter apathy was clearly felt
throughout the world of politics.
In the 1980s, politics was at the forefront of many peoples minds. News programmes
concentrated on the big political issues of the day, the front page of every serious daily and
Sunday newspaper covered these same stories, and there were a number of mainstream
entertainment television shows with a political theme. Several popular entertainers built their
careers around their political beliefs.
Twenty years on, things have changed dramatically. Politics is no longer a part of everyday
life, and political news stories will often take second place to non-stories, for example, the
coverage of reality TV shows. This is coupled with a growing number of people, especially
those under 25, who feel that they are powerless to change anything.
Democracy is quite clearly more than just figures at the next election. That much is clearly
understood, as turnout simply measures the number of votes, rather than the quality of votes.
Votes are a statistic, and offer no direct indication of the engagement between politicians and
voters. However, our political system is clearly not working as it should if we still have a low
turnout. Voter disengagement goes deeper than just turning out to vote and it is these issues
which manifest themselves every election.
Voter apathy isn‟t just a problem for general elections; it‟s a sign that our population isn‟t
engaged with our democracy as it should be. It should also be noted that its not just general
elections which suffer from low turnouts, the European Parliament elections in 1999 had only
23%, and the Scottish parliament elections in 2003 saw barely 50% of the population deciding
upon who governs Scotland. These figures are a dire indication that the general population of
the British Isles simply aren‟t engaged in politics. Turnout may not be the only important
defining feature in a democracy, but voter turnout concerns us with the legitimacy of the
government, and shows us how much the population really cares about politics. All
government is elected through the actions of the voters; hence a low turnout indicates an
unfair and unrepresentative government. It is undisputable that a small turnout increases the
danger of extremist parties such as the BNP gaining power.
1
Kevin Choi
Some don't see this trend as a problem; in an article for The Telegraph, Anthony King, a professor of
government at Essex stated that falling turnout should be regarded as being healthy. He argues that
because there is less tribalism and the extremes of party politics have died down we are happier, and
contented people don't feel as compelled to vote. There is no denying that happiness can reduce
people's motivation to stand up for a cause, but a brief examination of current events would show that
many people aren't happy with the way things are, be they asylum policy, the health service or fuel
taxes. Furthermore MORI polls show that voters were dissatisfied with the Government by January
2000, not too contented then.
2
Kevin Choi
3
Kevin Choi
Voting through the years
Early forms of democracy existed in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. The
classical form of democracy involved an assembly of citizens, and the election of other
ordinary citizens to manage the government offices. As a direct democracy, the citizens were
directly responsible for the matters of the city. However, the modern forms of democracy
were more likely to have evolved from the Middle Ages. The Magna Carta was one of the
first examples of rebellion against the ruling monarch, setting down a series of restrictions on
the King‟s powers and planting the roots for the constitutional law system seen today. For
many, the Magna Carta represents the beginning of democracy in the UK. The actual process
of the Magna Carta being signed is not atypical of a modern day Bill in the Parliament;
clauses were continually being added and taken away until King John finally signed it in 1215,
albeit under intimidation by the barons1.
What the Magna Carta did was effectively begin the issuance of individual human rights.
Article 39 of the original read “no free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of
his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or
send against him, unless by legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” With this
in force, the common people had the right to be judged on the same grounds as the king. Thus
the foundations of equality were built.
What then happens is an evolution of the powers of the common man, with the powers of the
monarchy slowly being reduced. Henry III called the first „parliament‟ in 1236, to advise him
on taxation. What began as a simple discussion with subjects of the king eventually became a
separate entity altogether. Parliament took power from the King, and the land began to be
ruled by common men.
Modern Politics has evolved far beyond the humble beginning of peasant uprising, to a point
to where every single person in the land has the ability to affect every other person in the land.
Modern society means that singular people can no longer exist by themselves, isolated and
self-dependent. As it stands, modern economy dictates that every single citizen plays their
own part in the national economy.
One of the corner stones of the modern system was extending the right to vote, the franchise,
to the people. The beginning of the 20th century saw a massive change in the fundamental
social structure of Britain, as the development of industry in the country brought a massive
increase in urban populations and the overall population increased. As a result of all these
socio-economic changes, there emerged a rich, factory-owning middle class, and an urban
based poor working class. Power in the system slowly shifted to these groups, with the 1932
Reform Act firstly extending the franchise to the property-owning middle class, and the final
1918 Representation of the People Act, which allowed all men and women to vote. The
importance of the franchise should in no way be doubted, because with it came extraordinary
changes in the political system. Where government before had been the preserve of the few
elite and rich, political parties now had to listen and respond to their voters; the people of the
country were finally truly able to have an impact on the system. The common people of the
land were now a real part of government, with every person playing an essential role in
selection of those in power. Political parties began to place a heavier emphasis on having a
defined base of support, and those with more distinct and clear values began to succeed.
Pressure groups and trade unions evolved in much the same way, and the Labour
1
Paulson Matthew, “The Magna Carta: A March Toward Democracy”, Associated Content
News,
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77156/the_magna_carta_a_march_torward_democr
acy_pg2_pg2.html?cat=37, October 30, 2006
4
Kevin Choi
Representation Committee was formed by a group of trade unionists in 1900, in order to get
MPs who would represent the working class elected into government. This group would
change its name to the Labour Party in 1906, and become the elected government in 1924.
The Labour Government was a milestone in the successive progression of power in the
British state towards the population. Government was no longer the far away power
concerned with only matters of great importance, defence, law, policing; all things far
removed from common conscience. Education, healthcare, and other such personal freedoms
were deemed not of Government‟s business, but the 20th century saw a change in this
perception. Slowly, the welfare state developed.
With more of the common people in power, the focus of the Government‟s work slowly
turned to respond to voters needs. Where before Government only dabbled in matters of
defence and law, matters of education, healthcare and unemployment began to encroach upon
the responsibilities of the state. The welfare state began to be born, borne upon the backs of
the thousands of voters who earnestly hoped their vote would make a difference.
5
Kevin Choi
6
Kevin Choi
The Status Quo
As the one of the core parts of the democratic system, every UK citizen over the age of 18 can
vote in British Elections. As for candidacy, anyone eligible to vote can be a candidate in an
election. The United Kingdom currently uses a First Past the Post system. This electoral
system is one of the simplest: the voter votes for the candidate they want for their
constituency, and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat. At the end of the day, the
candidate with more votes than the closest opposition is the winner. The results of the
elections then determine who sits in the House of Commons. Hence the House of Commons
is directly elected by the citizens. The „government‟ is simply the party with the majority in
the Commons, and the leader of this party becomes the Prime Minister. With party politics,
the system can sometimes be biased towards the party with just the highest amount of
candidates in each constituency. The use of the First Past the Post system comes with the
biggest benefit of ease of understanding. The concept is simple, and so is the execution of it.
This makes voting accessible for the average citizen, and in theory gives everyone a fair voice.
However, voters who voted for the losing candidate may feel that their vote had been wasted.
A disadvantage of the FPtP system is the whole concept of winner takes all – the rest of the
votes all count for nothing. Sometimes, the size of the constituency creates an imbalance in
the amount of candidates. One of the major flaws of the current system is that a candidate
does not, by any means, have to win the majority of the votes – only more than the closest
candidate. In practice, this could mean that Candidate X has only 23% of the vote in a
constituency, but still wins because the second closest candidate has only 20%. The other 70
odd percent of the votes simply count for nothing, and are thus wasted. As a result, some
constituencies are „safe seats‟, where there lives a majority of a particular party‟s supporters.
Many voters feel that they do not have a voice, and so abstain from voting at all.
Another factor affecting voters during elections may actually be the way in which they cast
their vote. When Election Day comes around, many see the effort of going to the voting
station wasted. Recent efforts to improve voter turnout have included making the vote easier.
Making it easier for people to vote may or may not solve the problem of the disillusionment
of voters, so many have criticised the recent introduction of postal voting and e-voting as a
„sticking plaster‟ approach, rather than a thorough attempt at improving the quality of
elections. So far, making voting easier for the general populace has been the only strategy for
tackling voter apathy. Making voting seem simpler and more accessible may on the surface
appear to be a healthy way to increase turnout, but in reality, these actions do not tackle the
fundamental roots of voter apathy. Government and citizens have long since drifted apart, and
it seems the two now exist in mutually exclusive spheres. Without a thorough review of the
breakdown of public trust in politics, voters will only continue to not vote, and let broken and
unrepresentative Governments into power again. Even Gordon Brown‟s recent pledges to
overhaul the electoral system with the Alternative Vote2 seem like no more than pre-election
sweeteners to appeal to popular politics. Some have even openly criticised the PM‟s efforts as
a ploy to get Labour re-elected for another term, as it is clear that the party will lose the 2010
elections under first past the post.3
It is clear that the biggest particular problem affecting the voting population is a wholesome
dissatisfaction with those in power. The public no longer trusts political parties, with 10% of
British adults saying that they „tend to trust‟ political parties4. Faith in politics has dropped to
2
BBC, Tuesday, 2 February 2010, Gordon Brown outlines plans to reform UK voting system, [Online].
Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8492622.stm
3
Hannon, D. (2010), What's wrong with Gordon Brown's Alternative Vote system, The Telegraph,
[Online]. Available from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100024759/whats-wrong-
with-gordon-browns-alternative-vote-system/
4
Eurobarometer 61, European Commission
7
Kevin Choi
an all time low, and people no longer believe that voting will have any difference in the way
the country is governed. Clearly, political parties no longer have an intimate relationship with
the voting population; hence voters have no desire to help any particular party. Furthermore,
faith in the government itself has dropped, with 69% saying that they „tend not to trust‟. An
entire breakdown in the system between the people and MPs has made a nation where
politicians are more famous for their private lives rather than anything they do in office.
Voters now see MPs as an elite group with their own aims and agendas; public schoolboys
from the same class who would rather do petty battle to inflate egos rather than represent the
views and needs of their constituencies. The recent expenses scandal was a clear
demonstration of the anger and disdain of those who are supposed to be governing the country.
The revelations that MPs were using taxpayer‟s money to fund their own extravagant
lifestyles prompted an explosion in anti-MP sentiment, with the Daily Mail having a field day
with sensationalist headlines, such as “Shameless MPs try to dodge trial using 1689 law
which protects them from prosecution”. Politics in the UK has degraded to such a point that
voters can no longer trust people who elevate themselves to Parliament, and thus voting has
dropped to an all time low.
However, the possibility that voters are making a clear choice to abstain should also be
considered. A report by the Hansard Society suggests that the abysmal turnout of the 2001
UK General Elections was not in fact caused by a massive fall in political awareness, but was
a result of a conscious decision to abstain from voting. This may be a sign of defiance against
what voters see as a broken system; voters may have been crying for help. This conculsion is
backed up by the evidence that the following 2005 elections had a turnout of 61.3%, up from
2001. As well as being completely disillusioned by popular politics, voters may have wanted
to make a clear sign that they did not trust any of the eligible candidates. This sentiment still
echoes through the country. A 25 year old I interviewed about the upcoming 2010 elections
said of the elections “I‟m not going to vote; they‟re all as bad as each other”. In this way, low
turnouts may be seen as an active shout from a desperate voting population for change.
8
Kevin Choi
Problems with the system
9
Kevin Choi
Case Study: 2001 UK General Elections
The 2001 Elections is an interesting example of the problems that modern politics faces. With
the lowest turnout since 1918, 59%, these elections were a prime example of what the
nation‟s politics were struggling to deal with. The elections also threw up doubts about the
fairness of the system, with Labour winning a large majority of the seats with a small
minority of the votes. All in all, it was a dismal year for politics, but an extremely informative
example of the problem of voter apathy in the UK.
“Low turnout weakens the legitimacy of elections and the political system, undermines
representation and the doctrine of the mandate, and calls into question the educative function
of elections.”5 The key cornerstone of democracy in the UK is the ability of voters to be able
to be heard. With a low turnout at any election, the results are nothing more than a shadow of
what they could be. The composition of Parliament is meant to represent the worries and
ideals of the voting population, but without people voting, this is simply not possible. One of
the most important aspects of an elected government is that those in power be directly
accountable for the deeds. A low turnout effectively absolves Parliament of this responsibility,
and those in power can have free reign over what they do. Admittedly, part of this problem is
the inherent weakness of the election system; that voters can only really vote in response to
past actions. However, the voter population themselves are still the only people who can
effectively control the Government. With the large majority not bothering to vote, the
population as a whole suffers, losing control over their nation. The only way in which voters
can guarantee their concerns are voiced and responded to is by voting, yet the 2001 elections
clearly show that this isn‟t happening. As a result, the 2001 elections are much regarded as
unfair and unrepresentative.
The run up to the election provided a somewhat decent approximation of the interests of the
voting population. Popular media mingled with the politics of the land when the Mirror
started the campaigning with spoof column showing William Hague as Bridget Jones from
the hit movie. Tabloid support has always been explicitly shown in the run up to elections,
and 2001 was no exception. However, a large majority of the interest was not about the actual
policies in question, but rather the scandals and celebrity support surrounding the respective
parties. Britney Spears‟ and Geri Halliwell‟s backing for Labour proved a major talking point,
in addition to the boxing prowess of John Prescott. The analysis of trivial matters continues,
with even jabs about Tony Blair‟s hairstyles being made. It was clear that the results of the
election would not be decided by the policies in dispute, but rather, the scandals that each
respective party was involved in. The quality of the election campaigns may have been a clear
factor in the dismal turnout.
The long-anticipated election campaign kicked off when Tony Blair visited the Palace on 8th
May,but the mood of the country seemed to be fractious and impatient to get it all over with.
The widespreadnational sentiment, perfectly encapsulated by the Sharron Storer episode in
Birmingham when sheberated the Prime Minister about health services in front of the
cameras, was one of annoyance that public services like hospitals, schools and railways had
failed to improve under Labour, and may even have deteriorated further, and yet, recalling
18-years of Conservative rule, unwillingness to give the Tories another chance. The public
felt that Labour had been given a massive 179-seat parliamentary majority in 1997, which the
government had squandered by excessive caution and lack of ambition, particularly by
following Conservative spending plans on the public sector for the first two years of their
administration. During the campaign William Hague often set the headlines, by an aggressive
campaign focusing on ‘saving the pound’ for the duration of the next parliament, having
stricter control of asylumseekers, and cutting taxes by 8 billion pounds. But it was a
5
Garnett Mark; Lynch Phillip, UK Government & Politics, Phillip Allan Updates, 2005, pg 53
10
Kevin Choi
campaign on the wrong issues, preaching to the dwindling band of core Conservative
sympathizers, but failing to reach out towards the majority who opted for better pubic
services, even at the price of tax hikes. Moreover it was a resolutely old-fashioned campaign,
ignoring the modern paraphernalia of opinion polls and focus groups, media management,
and professional advisers, in favor of soap-box gut oratory in public meetings up and down
the country, simplistic negative party political broadcasts, and ‘Common Sense’ sloganeering.
In the last week of the campaign, the reappearance of Mrs. Thatcher (the ’Mummy Returns’,
in her own words) sent a frisson of chills up and down the spines of Labour and LibDem
voters, reminding them why they were not voting Tory after all, although delighting the
Conservative faithful and the sketch writers. In contrast Labour’s Millbank used its usual
smooth operation, with Gordon Brown resolutely sticking to the planned ‘grid’, with
the issue de jour of schools and hospitals, hospitals and schools, even when others felt that
more excitement needed to be injected into events. There were a couple of noteworthy
wobbles, most spectacularly eggs and the ‘Prescott punch’, a novel way of greeting potential
voters, the Sharron Storer incident e, and similar moments when members of the public
managed to break through the cordon sanitaire surrounding Labour politicians to land an
effective verbal jab or punch, often on radio and television programs when leaders faced live
audiences. Blair’s shirt-sleeved speech launching the campaign at a girls’ school, St.
Saviour’s and St. Olaph’s was also widely seen as an own goal, epitomizing the need to lock
the spin-masters away in a cupboard for the duration of the election. But, despite critiques
and minor wobbles, Labour remained on message for most of the campaign, dominating
the center ground of British politics. For the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy ran an
energetic low budget, no-frills campaign, traveling up and down the country, and presenting
an alternative platform strategically slightly left of Labour on taxes and spending.
[SPACE FOR ANALYSIS ON RUN UP]
What does the way the election was built up tell us? Most obvious first, that the public didn‟t
really care about the politics at all. More emphasis was placed on the politicians themselves;
it was a battlefield of inflated egos between the elite few. The cult of celebrity seemed to have
invaded upon politics, and personality suddenly superseded the ability to lead. Most voters
seemed to completely overlook the political importance of the election, and instead raised
personal and private issues as the main winning points of the candidates. John Prescott‟s
punch at a member of the public was well documented, and it seemed like the politicians had
completely lost their sense of professionalism. In many ways, the political parties completely
failed in their duty to inform and serve the public. The electoral population may have been a
representation of a nostalgia to the golden age of politics, where up to three quarters of the
entire population would vote, for a combined effort to change Britain for the better.
[RESULTS ANALYSIS AND IMPACT]
The actual election results were not much of a surprise for the general electorate. Labour won
a landslide victory, just as predicted, with the Tories coming a respectable second. The result
was in accordance with the opinion polls, with some bookmakers paying out the day before
the day of the announcement. All but 29 seats changed hands in the 2001 election, not a
promising result for the future of politics in the UK.
11
Kevin Choi
Conclusion
[IMPACT, RESPONSIBILITIES.]
The drought of voter participation has even seen effects reaching into the wider world,
namely the EU. The 1999 EU Parliament elections had a shocking turnout of just 23%.
12
Kevin Choi
Bibliography
13