This is a question that can be asked of anyone, and will allow any person to receive a variant of the answer every time. Yet one idea remains clear, and that is the government operates under the consent of the governed.
As Liberal Democrats, we need to understand our namesake. We are democratic, we are a group that promotes liberalism and equality and importantly in relation to this, we promote a fairer system of voting; proportional representation. Everyone should have the right to feel as though their vote counts, everyone should feel valued as a participant in a democratic society.
But there is an issue in our country, as we can see in many other countries both democratic and non-democratic.
Apathy.
Apathy is the death of democracy, apathy is the death of freedom, justice, passion and of a country. A democratic state is not a right, it is something that must be fought for, something that must be defended at every opportunity. This fails when people look at an election and turn their attention elsewhere.
This is the critical state we must never allow to become entrenched in our society. We must never allow the population to allow democracy to pass them by.
Democracy is a sacred thing that must be a part of our everyday lives because it affects our everyday lives. If we permit apathy to flourish, and defeatism to become entrenched in our minds, then those who shout the loudest will claim the seat of power in this country and wrench power from the people to themselves.
So this must change, and it is why, in my honest opinion, the Liberal Democrats must put their foot down and push for a two pronged approach. Yes we must push for proportional representation to ensure every vote counts, but at the same time I am of the opinion that we must make mandatory voting an enshrined facet of our democracy.
Not in a way that compels people to vote for a party they don’t believe in. We must ensure that abstaining is an option, but without the state of apathy being permitted.
It might seem an antithesis to the idea of liberalism to have a system that promotes this form of voting, but I think it is a method that has the potential to save democracy. It means everyone has to participate. It means that no matter who you are, from the 18 year old about to start university, or the pensioner in the care home, you are a part of this democratic society, and taking that away once it becomes ingrained in the minds of the population will be just that much harder.
Creating it as a cornerstone of society, being taught, and being put into practice for everyone, will ensure that our generations to come will be voting no matter what, and understand that they are a small but vital part in the success of our country.
We as a society are the inheritors of the Magna Carta, the start of our parliamentary system. Over the centuries it has been modified, improved and negated, but always evolving. Now it is time to do it once again. We must not be content to sit and wait for our democracy to improve, nay we must shout again and again, and demand our voices mean something.
This is the beauty of democracy, and we must protect it, develop it, and above all else, never lose faith in it, no matter how dark the rest of the world may become.
* Jonathan Parrott is a Liberal Democrat member from High Peak, who works closely with the local council.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Methodism at Horton, Gower
A promotional film for Northampton from 1965
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Graham Evans
Peter Davies
PM
David S
Pawel Urbanski
9 Comments
There’s a risk, I think, of equating the general participatory mechanisms and consent of the governed in a democratic society with the specific act of voting. The vote is important for providing orderly transitions between governments as they gain or lose the consent of the public. But it’s a very minor part of the process as a whole.
If people aren’t currently voting out of “apathy”, why might that be?
– a belief that their vote won’t make a difference to the result (largely true now for a lot of people, PR would provide a partial fix)
– a belief that none of the options on offer will make a meaningful difference to them (which may be true for some, especially if restricting to options with a reasonable chance of forming a government)
– a lack of information about the process, their rights, or similar
– a lack of time to vote due to other pressures
– plenty of other possible reasons which I’m sure political activists think are Bad Reasons
Marching people to polling stations to insist that they stick a blank ballot paper in a box (or even vote for the alphabetically-first candidate), under penalty of … fines? imprisonment? … fixes absolutely none of that. It’s Goodhart’s Law in action.
In the meantime other forms of political engagement – protest, community action, non-party-political campaigning, etc. – are often specifically discouraged.
Truth is, we claim to be democratic, and have democratic in our name, but we rule out any democratic route for the people of Scotland or Wales to achieve independence should that be their wish. Opposing independence for either country is a valid position but opposing allowing a referendum on the question to prevent the people of the country having a democratic route to achieve that end is a thoroughly undemocratic position to take. We need to reflect on this urgently if we really support democracy.
Surely a central plank of Liberalism is restraint on making things either compulsory or forbidden, that should be part of our instincts .
Compulsory Voting also misses the point, you can force people to Vote but you can’t make them think about Politics or believe in it, that is a long job of persuasion.
We could certainly make Voting easier & give Councils money to publicise Elections, as it is its easy not to know they are even happening.
Lets leave Authoritarianism to Labour.
@ Paul Barker “Lets leave Authoritarianism to Labour.”
An interesting observation, Paul, but from an historical point of view very difficult to sustain. It was Labour that supported female suffrage when the Liberal Party in power either opposed it or dithered. It was a Liberal Government that introduced the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) with its punitive clauses, it was the Asquith Coalition which introduced conscription in 1916, and it was the Lloyd George Government that sent in the Black and Tans to Ireland. One can add it was Sir John Simon who declared the General Strike illegal and that the miners’ union should be sued (“to the last farthing”) after the owners (many of whom were prominent Liberals) cut miners pay, lengthened the working day and then locked the miners out for eight months.
I agree with Paul Barker at 16th Oct ’26 – 3:41pm
Thank you for a most relevant article on the vulnerabilities of our alleged “Democracy”!
Might ignorance, both passive and imposed/structural, be a significant cause of apathy?
According to Robert Dahl, our governance set up is not a valid democracy but, in reality, a form of polyarchy. He used this word-concept to distinguish real-world representative systems from an abstract, ideal concept which can only be valid when relatively few are actively involved.
Valid polyarchy relies on the diffusion of power. Mr Dahl viewed polyarchy as a process towards democratisation rather than a completed entity because the distribution of non-voting resources – like wealth and organisational power – remains highly unequal.
It is, therefore, essential that the mass of the citizenry, and their children, are made so much more aware of the realities of the unfairness of their current governance set up and are facilitated in using that knowledge to become better informed, organised and so better represented..
Currently, the financial sector of our society “excercises a disproportionate and systemic influence over British economic governance and policy making.” (A.I.)
P. S. Passive ignorance is a lack of knowledge where a person is simply unaware.
Imposed ignorance/structural ignorance is a state of deprivation where people are deliberately kept from knowing certain facts, questions etc. by forms of authority, social norms, inadequate education, main stream media bias/lack of objectivity etc.
In the recent Holborn & St Pancras by election, the turnout was 38.8%. Hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy. However, after reading all the candidates statements on whocanivotefor.co.uk, the winner had by far the best case and reasons to vote for, she was local, informed and knowledgeable. Although not a supporter of any of the contesting parties, I give credit where it was due.
Compulsory voting would provide a big boost for those of us who appear at the top of the ballot paper.
If your question is framed around what are the minimum criteria of a functioning democracy I would respond by agreeing the agreed consent of the governed. How this is achieved varies. I don’t think it can be only by four or five yearly elections however fair and free they are. In a parliamentary democracy such as ours our MPs act as custodians of this on the electorate’s behalf. Citizens should be able to articulate their opinion independent of their MPs. How and what it leads to is up for debate. However there is a limit to how much protest a functioning democracy can tolerate without a democratic response.