Democracy, Populism and Covid-19: The pandemic has highlighted first past the post’s inherent flaws
According to Robert Dahl, who speaks with authority on the subject, democracy is constituted of two elements: contestation and participation. Under Dahlian schema, a state ceases to function as a democracy if it reneges on its duty to allow free and fair elections.
A political union facilitates competition by protecting the right to form conflicting political parties. Under the watchful eye of a free press, parties are supposed to compete to secure the endorsement of the oft-discussed, but rarely-defined, “people”.
To retain democratic status, states should also permit widespread electoral participation. Suffrage must be universal; the voting system fair and political funding free from skulduggery.
The rising tides of populism have been widely identified as the most pressing threat to democracy. In her award-winning book, ‘How to Lose a Country’, Ece Temelkuran identifies the seven steps that separate democratic rule from outright dictate. Ultimately, the Turkish writer argues, populism begins as a movement that seeks to represent “real people” — whoever they might be.
What begins as a faceless movement later evolves into a charisma-driven government, one which attempts to undermine democratic norms and judicial principles. Via seven seamless checkpoints, an entire nation is lost, condemning millions of people — even the “real” ones — to tinpot autocracy.
The virtues of freedom and liberty are long-established, just take a cursory glance at right-wing discourse in the United States of America. Republican Party supporters are wedded to the principle of freedom, the unalienable right to challenge and resist government intervention into the lives of America’s body politic.
This opposition to interventionist governance has taken many forms in the world’s premier republic. Whether it be an aversion to socialised healthcare, steadfast opposition to gun controls, or the rejection of pandemic-induced stimulus, the Republican mantra remains unadjusted. Free markets reign supreme, the government is good for nothing.
This unashamedly American discourse has spread, seeping into the lexicons of conservatives and libertarians around the world. In the wake of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union, Nigel Farage — the father of British Euroscepticism — proclaimed the dawn of a new era of independence for his nation.
Freedom — from unelected bureaucrats and SPADs — is the ultimate goal of British populists. At whatever cost, “real Britons” must be liberated from their shackles. Britain must come first.
As Temelkuran warned, populism is a potent weapon. It sneaks into the corridors of power, corrupts the structures that previously upheld democratic virtues, and thus changes the rules of the game. In normal times, populism is dangerous enough — democratic backsliding in Turkey, Hungary, and Brazil has proven so.
In the age of coronavirus, however, populist rhetoric has proven utterly destructive. Britain now encounters a toxic mess. Covid-19 mitigation policies have been pushed through at breakneck speed, angering Conservative backbenchers and members of the public alike.
Just like in the United States, freedom is positioned at the top of the agenda in Blighty. As opposition to government intervention grows, the charge against Boris Johnson’s administration has gained clarity: debate your policies, or Tory support will evaporate.
In Dahl’s words, British democracy has been eroded. Mid-term competition has been eviscerated, while disenchantment sky-rockets. First past the post — when combined with populism and Covid-19 — will destroy British democracy from within. The solution is simple, ditch single-member plurality voting, or else the party is over.
The coronavirus first arrived in the UK at the start of 2020, inflicting seismic changes to how Britons go about their daily lives. On 23 March, Prime Minister Boris Johnson enacted a national lockdown — shutting the economy to limit the spread of an unfamiliar disease.
Britain, like much of the world, has since re-emerged from lockdown. The chattering classes embarked upon their weekend trips to Perugia, while the rest of the world returned to pubs, shops, and offices. Instructed to follow social distancing regulations and the infamous national common sense, Britain was lured into a state of false confidence.
By the start of September, as children and teachers returned to schools, new cases of Covid-19 emerged once again. 22 days later, Boris Johnson was forced to redouble efforts to battle the resurgent virus, demanding hospitality settings to close by 22:00, encouraging workers to stay home where possible, and halting plans to allow fans back into stadia in October.
Opposition to this pivot arrived in three forms.
First, we have the outright conspiracy theorists — those who simply reject the idea that a virus has taken the world by storm. This disease, in the eyes of the QAnon clan, was probably cooked up by Bill Gates and spread to facilitate an insidious vaccination programme. Yikes.
Second, we have the plucky crew that is willing to accept personal risk. Their argument, as it often follows, is that healthy people under the age of 60 should be allowed to carry on their lives as usual. To back-up this thesis, proponents cite figures that show Covid-19 as being a largely inconsequential disease for the bulk of society. This approach simply ignores broader societal implications. Whoops.
Third, we have the small-d democrats. Unlike their sceptical comrades, democrats recognise the need to implement measures to combat the pandemic. Quite often, democrats will support policies that the government has implemented. Instead, their gripe is with how those schemes become manifested. Facemasks are cool, but let’s get parliamentary consent first. Democracy?
Once Britain was first introduced to Covid-19, MPs voted to hand the executive sweeping, emergency powers to combat the disease. Upon the Coronavirus Act’s ratification, Conservative backbencher Steve Baker warned that the new legislation would usher in a new “dystopian society.” Sir Ed Davey, now the full-time leader of the Liberal Democrats, agreed, requesting that the bill would be subject to frequent scrutiny.
Ian Dunt — a prominent political commentator — called the Act “the most extensive encroachment on British civil liberties… ever seen outside of wartime.”
Following the introduction of the government’s latest round of regulations, angst across the Commons is incipient. Many Conservatives MPs have grown increasingly frustrated by their lack of involvement in the process, arguing that the Prime Minister has started to rule as though he is a president.
Boris Johnson has faced suggestions from Tory MPs that he is running a “dictatorship.” Sir Edward Leigh accused the government of “authoritarianism” and said that its strategy had become “increasingly incompetent.” Pauline Latham asked the Health Secretary — Matt Hancock — to remind №10 that “we actually live in a democracy rather than a dictatorship.”
Remember, democracy is constituted of two parts: contestation and participation. On the coronavirus, the competition element has been seemingly abandoned.
On matters of free speech, it is probably wise to apply JS Mill’s harm principle. Individuals should be at liberty to express whichever opinions they desire, but they should expect to be penalised if their views inflict harm on others. Under this framework, a person could freely express the idea that Covid-19 is a hoax… they just shouldn’t expect to be platformed by the BBC.
With this in mind, why have so many Western democracies abandoned debate amid unprecedented circumstances? Debate — so it is claimed — is vital to cultivating ideas, which ultimately helps to shape “correct” policy.
At a time of crisis, effective legislation is a must.
In Britain’s case, the rules of the game have hindered the nation’s democracy at a time in which it is needed the most. First past the post handed the Conservative Party an unassailable majority in the Commons. That majority — exaggerated by the voting system’s quirks — is now vulnerable to populist rhetoric.
In a recent essay, Lady Brenda Hale issued a simple plea: “that we get back to a properly functioning constitution as soon as we possibly can”. In the age of the coronavirus, normality can feel like a dot on the horizon. To reverse the tides of populism and executive overreach, Westminster must be fleet-footed. Britain must ask itself a simplistic question: “does majoritarian politics still work?”
Britain is the archetypal majoritarian democracy. The nation’s politics is broadly dominated by two parties — simply because its voting system disadvantages smaller opponents. Despite taking steps towards devolution under New Labour, the UK remains a unitary state. Only on account of Parliament’s bicameralism does British democracy deviate from type.
The implications of this system are stark. The Conservative Party won 43.6% of the vote in December 2019, which saw them win 57.8% of seats in the Commons. Despite securing 11.5% of the popular vote, the Liberal Democrats secured just 11 seats in Westminster — 1.7% of those on offer.
Under a system of proportional representation — where votes translate more closely into seats — might the British parliament have dealt with the coronavirus more democratically?
Had a regional list system been used in 2019, the Conservatives would have won 288 seats — 77 fewer than they currently hold. The Labour Party would have an additional 14 seats, the Brexit Party would have 10 MPs and the Liberal Democrats would take up 70 seats in the Commons.
While the Electoral Reform Society’s methodology does not take into account how voting patterns would change under a radically different system, the above illustrates the extent to which British politics is manipulated by first past the post.
Had the government been faced with more challenging parliamentary arithmetic at the start of the pandemic, it would have behaved differently. Conservative MPs alone wouldn’t have held the balance of power, meaning that consensus and trust would have been required to fashion a path through the perilous unknown.
Whatever might have happened, parliamentary debate and scrutiny would have been upheld to a greater degree — just look at how Germany has dealt with the pandemic. In Berlin, the coronavirus has highlighted the hollow nature of populism. The AfD’s appeal has declined, with voters signalling their intent to return to mainstream parties. Angela Merkel has been criticised throughout the pandemic, both from those within her conservative coalition and those in opposition, but the ongoing debate in Germany has shown dangerous ideas for what they are. Dangerous.
Democracy is the answer, even in times of global emergency.
Midfield Politics is a weekly podcast series dedicated to analysing and discussing current affairs and partisan developments in the United States and United Kingdom. You can follow Midfield Politics on Twitter.
Luke James is a freelance journalist and PAIS student at the University of Warwick. Interested in hearing more from Luke? You can follow him on Twitter, or reach him via his portfolio.
