Democracy & Participation Quiz

Representative democracy involves electing officials to make political decisions on behalf of citizens, such as MPs in Parliament. 

Direct democracy allows citizens to make decisions directly, such as through referendums. Representative democracy emphasises accountability and expertise, while direct democracy stresses participation and legitimacy.

Both systems are democratic and give power to the people. However, representative democracy is indirect and mediated, while direct democracy is immediate. Representative democracy is better suited for large, complex societies; direct democracy can provide legitimacy on major constitutional questions.

Advantages include practicality in a large state, expert decision-making, and accountability through elections. 

Disadvantages include potential elitism, reduced participation, and the risk of unrepresentative outcomes.

Advantages include enhanced legitimacy, public engagement, and clear decisions. 

Disadvantages include voter fatigue, the risk of populism, oversimplification of complex issues, and the potential for tyranny of the majority.

Arguments for reform include low turnout, the unelected House of Lords, and disproportionate results under First Past the Post. 

Arguments against include political stability, strong constituency links, and incremental reform already undertaken.

1832 Great Reform Act

This act enfranchised the middle classes, redistributed seats to reflect industrialisation, and reduced corruption. It was significant in beginning the process of widening suffrage, though the majority remained disenfranchised.

1918 and 1928 Acts

The 1918 Act extended the vote to all men over 21 and women over 30 meeting property qualifications, marking a major step towards equality. 

The 1928 Act granted women the vote on the same terms as men, establishing universal adult suffrage.

The 1969 Act lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, recognising young people’s role in society. It was the last major franchise reform, though debates about votes at 16 continue.

Suffragists (NUWSS) pursued peaceful, constitutional campaigning, while suffragettes (WSPU) used militant tactics to gain attention. Together, they maintained pressure that contributed to women gaining the vote, especially after the First World War.

Votes at 16 campaigns for lowering the voting age. Supporters argue that young people are politically engaged and affected by decisions. Critics claim 16-year-olds lack maturity. The debate continues, with limited adoption in devolved nations.

Pressure groups influence politics through lobbying, public campaigns, legal challenges, and direct action. Insider groups work closely with government, while outsider groups seek to mobilise public opinion. Examples include the British Medical Association and Extinction Rebellion.

The National Farmers’ Union (insider) uses close links with government to shape agricultural policy. In contrast, Extinction Rebellion (outsider) uses disruptive protest to raise awareness about climate change. Their differing methods reflect their access to decision-makers.

Think tanks produce research to shape policy debates (e.g., Institute for Public Policy Research). Lobbyists provide access to ministers, sometimes raising concerns about transparency. Corporations may influence policy through donations or lobbying, raising questions about the balance between economic power and democracy.

Magna Carta (1215) established the principle that no one is above the law, laying the groundwork for constitutional rights. 

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, strengthening individuals’ rights against the state.

Conflicts can arise between individual rights (e.g., free speech) and collective rights (e.g., protection from hate speech). Civil liberties groups such as Liberty and Privacy International campaign to safeguard rights, but debates continue over issues like surveillance, terrorism, and equality.