The UK prides itself on being the “mother of parliaments,” a beacon of democracy that has inspired governance systems worldwide. But beneath the self-congratulatory rhetoric lies a political system creaking under the weight of its contradictions, distorted by entrenched privilege, and increasingly divorced from the needs of its citizens. To understand whether the UK is a functioning democracy, we must go beyond the surface of its institutions and interrogate the deep structural inequalities and failures that define its politics.

The Illusion of Representation

At first glance, the UK’s representative democracy appears to function well enough. Citizens vote every five years to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) to the House of Commons, and these MPs theoretically govern in their constituents’ interests. But this representation is profoundly flawed. The First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system is a relic of a bygone age, systematically distorting public will. It ensures that millions of votes are wasted and entrenches the dominance of two parties, squeezing out smaller movements and preventing genuine pluralism.

Take the 2019 general election: the Conservatives secured 56% of parliamentary seats with just 43.6% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Green Party received 2.7% of the vote but only secured one seat (0.2% of seats). The Liberal Democrats won 11.5% of the vote but only 1.7% of the seats. According to the Electoral Reform Society, in 2019, over 70% of votes were “wasted,” meaning they had no impact on the composition of Parliament. This is not democracy; it’s managed decline disguised as tradition, and it props up a system designed to benefit those who already hold power. While proponents of FPTP often argue that it provides strong and stable governments, this stability often comes at the cost of fair representation and can lead to governments with a large parliamentary majority based on a minority of the popular vote.

Unelected Lords, Unchecked Privilege

Even more egregious is the House of Lords, which epitomizes the UK’s democratic deficit. Packed with life peers, bishops, and hereditary aristocrats, the Lords wield significant influence over legislation without a shred of public accountability. As of 2023, the House of Lords had 788 members, including 672 life peers, 90 hereditary peers, and 26 bishops. Many argue that the Lords provide valuable expertise and scrutiny, drawing on the experience of its members. However, the unelected nature of the chamber raises concerns about democratic legitimacy. Proposals for reform have been repeatedly stymied, often by the very elites who benefit most from its continuation.

It’s telling that a country so quick to export democracy overseas remains so unwilling to reform its own institutions. The House of Lords, like FPTP, is not an accident of history; it is a deliberate choice to maintain power in the hands of a few.

Rule of Law or Rule of Convenience?

Proponents of the UK system often point to the independence of the judiciary as a cornerstone of its democracy. Although the judiciary has occasionally stood firm against executive overreach—most notably in the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling against Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament—its independence is increasingly under threat. Judicial reviews and accountability mechanisms are being curtailed under the guise of efficiency, eroding a vital check on government power. A report by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law warned that recent government proposals could weaken judicial review and undermine the rule of law. The debate about the proper role of the judiciary in a democracy is complex. While some argue that judicial review can overstep into the realm of policymaking, which should be the preserve of elected representatives, others maintain that an independent judiciary is essential for upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and holding the government to account.

This isn’t about streamlining governance; it’s about consolidating authority. When ministers rail against “activist judges,” what they mean is they resent being held accountable at all.

The Role of the Media

In any democracy, the media should act as a watchdog, holding power to account and amplifying diverse voices. But in the UK, media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires, shaping public discourse to reflect elite interests. Rupert Murdoch’s News UK, for example, owns The Sun, The Times, and The Sunday Times, while the Daily Mail and General Trust, controlled by the Rothermere family, owns the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, and the Metro. This concentration of ownership raises concerns about media bias and the lack of diversity in perspectives. A 2021 report by the Media Reform Coalition found that just three companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group, and Reach) dominate 83% of the UK national newspaper market. This is not a free press; it’s a cartel.

The BBC, once seen as a pillar of impartiality, is increasingly under political pressure, its funding precarious and its independence in question. Meanwhile, social media platforms are flooded with misinformation, leaving citizens navigating a fragmented and often hostile information landscape. While proponents of a free press argue that any regulation is a threat to freedom of speech and that a competitive market should be allowed to operate freely, the reality is that concentrated ownership can lead to a narrowing of perspectives and a bias towards the interests of the owners.

Public Disillusionment and Powerlessness

Perhaps the most telling sign of democratic decay is the growing disillusionment among the public. Voter turnout in the 2019 general election was 67.3%, a slight decrease from 2017, and significantly lower among young people. A 2023 survey by the Hansard Society found that 75% of people believe the system of governing needs “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of improvement. Trust in politicians is at historic lows. Scandals like the handling of pandemic procurement contracts or the revolving door between government and private lobbying firms have revealed a system that rewards cronyism over competence.

But it’s not just about scandals; it’s about the systemic failure of politics to deliver for ordinary people. Wages have stagnated for over a decade, inequality has deepened, and public services have been hollowed out. Democracy is meaningless if it cannot provide a dignified life for its citizens.

Devolution: A Flicker of Hope?

The UK’s devolved administrations—Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland—offer a glimpse of what a more localized and accountable democracy could look like. These nations have carved out progressive policies, from Scotland’s free university tuition to Wales’ focus on sustainable development. Scotland and Wales use forms of proportional representation for their devolved parliaments (Additional Member System), leading to more representative outcomes. But Westminster’s grip on power remains tight, especially in England, where local councils are often reduced to managing austerity rather than driving meaningful change.

For Scotland, the situation is particularly acute. With a clear mandate for an independence referendum repeatedly ignored by Westminster, the democratic will of the Scottish people is being overridden. This is not unionism; it’s imperialism by another name.

The Way Forward

The UK’s democracy is not beyond saving, but it requires radical transformation.

1. Electoral Reform: Electoral reform must be the starting point, replacing FPTP with a form of proportional representation. The Additional Member System (AMS), used in Scotland and Wales, or the Single Transferable Vote (STV), used in Northern Ireland, offer fairer alternatives, ensuring every vote counts and that parliament more accurately reflects the will of the people.
2. House of Lords Reform: The House of Lords must be abolished and replaced with a genuinely democratic second chamber. This could be an elected chamber, a chamber chosen by sortition (like a citizens’ assembly), or a hybrid model. Countries like Germany and Ireland have elected or partially elected upper houses.
3. Media Reform: Media ownership must be democratized, with support for independent, community-driven journalism. Stricter antitrust regulations could be used to break up media monopolies. Policies could also be implemented to promote media plurality, such as the creation of a public interest media fund, as advocated for by the Media Reform Coalition.
4. Citizen Engagement: Mechanisms like citizens’ assemblies, successfully used in Ireland to debate complex issues like abortion and climate change, should be employed to increase citizen participation in decision-making. France’s recent Citizens’ Convention for Climate demonstrates the potential of this approach on a large scale. Additionally, expanding the use of referendums, when carefully designed and accompanied by informed public debate, could provide another avenue for direct democracy.
5. Devolution and Federalism: The UK should move towards a more federal system, with greater powers devolved to the nations and regions. This could involve establishing regional assemblies in England, similar to those in Scotland and Wales.

But these changes won’t come from those who benefit from the current system. They will come from movements: from climate activists, union organizers, and ordinary people demanding a better future. The UK could be a functioning democracy, but only if we fight for it.