Democracy Imagined

In the 21^st century, modern democracies, particularly the UK, face fundamental challenges that undermine the very notion of popular sovereignty. Despite the appearance of democratic governance, a powerful elite, often referred to as “The Establishment”, arguably operates behind the scenes, subtly manipulating processes to advance its own interests and privileges at the expense of the greater good. This situation is greatly exacerbated by the current reliance of both the UK’s main political parties on significant financial contributions from wealthy “super-donors” which allows money to exert undue influence on election outcomes and policy, thereby undermining the ideal of political equality.

Democracy Imagined critically examines these issues, questioning the effectiveness of existing electoral mechanisms to truly reflect the will of the people and highlighting the disconnect between elected representatives and the demographic and political landscape of the populace. The post aims to philosophically dissect these problems and propose radical solutions for achieving a more authentic and representative democracy. It does so in an unusual way: by being a thought experiment —a difficult one, too. But have a little fun. Give it a go anyway.

---

Imagine a future UK in which a democratic socialist party is elected to power, a democratic socialist party unlike any before, the Labour party of 1945, for example. For the purposes of illustration, let’s call this political party the RDP or Real Democracy Party.

Left-wing, Real Democracy argues that, despite the appearance of popular sovereignty, Britain is not a democracy; rather, it is an oligarchy. Behind the scenes, we are ruled by the so-called  Establishment, a small, powerful elite who stage-manage “democracy”, advancing its interests, powers and privileges at the expense of the greater good.

However, The People are not powerless. Certainly, the generous funding provided by a few score wealthy individuals to right-wing political parties does give them an advantage in election campaigns. They can just outspend their left-wing opposition in terms of all-important media campaigns and advertising, etc. Nonetheless, this does not guarantee victory. Socialist parties have won elections in the past. They could do so again, especially if they have learnt the lessons of history, and the RDP has.

Like previous democratic socialist parties, the RDP seeks to achieve socialism through democracy, but not as its predecessors have attempted to do; by (a) winning a General Election, (b) enacting a raft of policies with the long-term objective of replacing capitalism with socialism and then (c) going back to the electorate to secure another term in power.

That has not worked.

Instead, the RDP is a single-issue party focused on enacting a Great Reform Act that will transform Britain’s political landscape. It campaigns on the promise that its reforms will introduce Real Democracy to the UK for the first time in history, thus setting the conditions for the people themselves to enact socialism.

The stage is set. The Great Reform has been passed into law.

Imagine, to begin with, a future in which it is a criminal offence to donate money to political parties or politicians. Political parties are now funded by membership dues and state grants. It is no longer possible for a handful of wealthy donors to do what they do now: pay to get the party they favour in power.

Now, for something even more extreme: imagine that elections, election campaigns and voting are all a thing of the past. Taking inspiration from Ancient Athens, which believed elections to be unfair and undemocratic, the Great Reform Act has replaced General Elections with national quarterly surveys of people’s political and ideological beliefs. People are registrants rather than voters. These huge surveys map where registrants are on a chart with two axes, the left-right economic spectrum, and the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum.

UK Political Parties, 2024 General Election

Source: politicalcompass.com

Matched against the predetermined ideological footprint of each of the political parties - and predicated upon the UK adopting a list proportional representation system - the surveys’ results determine the levels of support each party receives in Parliament, and in a much more nuanced way than today. The quarterly surveys decide not only how many MPs a party has, but also what kind of MPs they are. E.g. if 75% of a party’s registrants map as belonging to its left-liberal wing, then by law, 75% of its MPs must also be similarly left-liberal. Not only this, because (anonymously) the demographics of a party’s registrants are known, its social composition in Parliament can also be shaped. If, say, 52% of a party’s registrants are working-class, then 52% of its MPs must also be from a working-class background.

Note, these quarterly surveys would employ a stratified sampling technique. Stratified sampling uses the known characteristics of a population (in this case, from the census) to divide it into subgroups and then randomly sample from each subgroup. I.e., age, gender, ethnicity, social class and location, etc. As to the size of the sample, if we want a confidence level of 99% and a margin of error of 0.1%, and we estimate the UK’s registrant-age population to be roughly 50 million people, then we would need a sample of approximately. 1.6 million individuals to mirror the political will of We the People. With phenomenal accuracy, too. That said, to significantly increase levels of political participation, it would be better to conduct a much larger survey, one that ensures that at least 25% of the registrant-age population is surveyed each quarter and that every year, every adult can register their political opinions at least once.

Let’s go even further. Now, picture in your mind’s eye a Parliament that has been totally reformed. Something like the House of Commons still exists but is instead called the House of Delegates. While in theory, individual MPs are the people’s political representatives, their primary allegiance is to their party. Above all else, MPs are their party's delegates in Parliament. MPs vote as they are told to vote. And should they not, well, that is what the Whips’ Office is for.

There would still be approximately. 650 members, and Delegates’ jobs would be much like MPs’ jobs. Party delegates would still sit on oversight committees and vote on legislative proposals and amendments, etc. And, of course, the party or coalition of parties with a majority, as now, would still be entitled to form the executive (the government) and select from its delegates the usual assortment of Ministers of State.

Here, though, is the real difference between the House of Delegates and the Commons: its purpose is to administrate and govern but not legislate. There is a second house, the House of Representatives, which has replaced the abolished House of Lords. This is the UK’s legislature, the only body with the power to make law. In the future, imagine – as in the USA - there is a clear separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary. The Executive is no longer drawn from the Legislature and can no longer make law as well as govern. A separation of powers is held to be an ideal in a democracy by many political philosophers. It safeguards against abuses of power by ensuring no single core element of the State controls all government functions.

Representatives are not elected. Instead, they are selected from a group of suitably qualified and trained volunteers from every social stratum using a process usually called “sortition.” Basically, they are chosen randomly using, once again, a stratified sampling methodology. The House of Representatives would be roughly 650 members strong.

Picture this: no pantomime debates, political horse trading or regrettable compromises in the House of Representatives. None of the usual party politics we see in the Commons today and would expect to continue in the House of Delegates. The function of the House of Representatives is to act as a citizens’ jury. It listens to arguments and evidence for and against legislative proposals made by the Government, and then votes on them, introducing amendments as it sees fit. Think of the process as being a bit like a political court case.

To be clear (as a safeguard against populism and demagoguery), Delegates do not make speeches in the House of Representatives. Each political party sends advocates (Barristers usually) to make its case. So do other interested parties. If a new law were proposed by the House of Delegates to restrict drilling for oil in the North Sea, then – obviously – environmental groups and the oil industry would be entitled to send advocates. In an expansion of the role of the Judiciary, it would be for a judge to organise hearings in the House of Representatives. The President of the House of Representatives - chosen using sortition - would become the country’s highest-ranking judge.

One last thing to mention: a method must exist in every democracy for the people to rid themselves of a government they no longer want. In the end, this is the ultimate purpose of democracy. The proposed solution is an annual vote of confidence in the government held by the House of Representatives.

Representatives, not registrants, vote because the House of Representatives, dealing as it does with the House of Delegates on a day-to-day basis, and its members, being trained political jurists, are much better positioned than the public to pass a well-informed judgment on a government. Representatives are full-time insiders. They have an insider’s view of what is going on that is not filtered through the distorting lens of the media. If a simple majority of the House of Representatives has no confidence in a government, it is out.

This annual vote of confidence works in conjunction with the quarterly surveys of registrants. People’s ideological beliefs shift relatively slowly. Usually. This will be reflected in the results of the quarterly surveys. Accordingly, over time, organically, some parties in the House of Delegates grow while others shrink. Governments will come and go because of this. All well and good. There is, however, a difference between supporting an ideology such as Democratic Socialism and supporting an RDP government.

Imagine a situation in which most registrants are socialists. The House of Representatives must respect that. If the country wants a socialist government, then that is the will of the people, inviolable. However, let us suppose the RDP government turns out to be self-serving, corrupt and inept. In this situation, even staunch socialist Representatives might want them gone. In this case, in clear conscience, they can register their lack of confidence, maintain their party’s strength in the House of Delegates, but still rid themselves of a government they despise. It is sacked, to be replaced by a new RDP government drawn from within the ranks of RDP Delegates.

Can you see in your mind’s eye what the central elements of the State might look like? If so, that’s the easy part. Try this for mental gymnastics: In what ways do you envision politics being different? What kinds of laws might be passed in this new legislature? Today, laws often seem to favour the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of ordinary people. Might that change if the core elements of the state were demographically and politically representative of We the People? With a new written constitution (something Britain has never had), might we regain, for example, some of our lost civil liberties? Most important of all, would all these changes to Britain’s political system (and many more, there is no room to discuss here) result in Britain becoming a socialist country?

In a nutshell, would an actual government, “of the people, by the people, for the people” result in the socialist dream of an economy and a society of the people, by the people, for the people? I think it would, but even if this vision were rejected, would that be so very bad? We would still be living in a non-elective democracy, a real democracy where the people rule, not a wealthy and privileged elite.

---

About the Author

Richard Christie is a retired college lecturer and full-time philosopher. At the age of 34, he blagged his way onto an undergraduate course at the University of Plymouth without having a single academic qualification. He graduated with a 1st class honours degree in Sociology and Social Research. After completing a PGCE in Adult Education, he taught A-Level Sociology, Politics, and Philosophy at St. Austell College, Cornwall. He also taught undergraduate sociology and politics as part of the Adult Education Programme. Currently, he is writing a book, with the working title “Democracy Reimagined.” The above post is an adapted version of the first chapter of his book.