Is There Hope for Democracy?

Sam Lowry
Sam Lowry is a senior manager in the software development industry with an interest in political and social issues. His name is a pseudonym.

Winston Churchill’s oft-quoted remark that democracy is ‘the worst form of government except for all the others’ has aged, depending on one’s viewpoint, either as a timeless witticism or a prophecy of creeping obsolescence. In Britain today, the question of whether democracy is functioning as advertised – or indeed functioning at all – has moved from the fringes of political philosophy into mainstream debate.

A recent article by Cambridge historian Robert Tombs, published in the Telegraph last week, captures one strand of this anxiety with particular clarity. Britain’s present malaise, he argues, includes an assault on democratic legitimacy – not a frontal one, but a contemptuous determination to ignore public wishes and subvert a legally expressed democratic decision.

Whether one agrees with his framing or not, the underlying anxiety – that elected governments routinely do things their voters did not consent to and then resist accountability for the results – is widely shared across the political spectrum. But the more uncomfortable and ultimately more important question lies beneath that one: are we, collectively, the kind of people still capable of sustaining genuine self-governance at all?

What democracy actually promises – and doesn’t

Democracy, in its classical liberal form, is not a guarantee of wise government. It is primarily a mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power and the accountability of those who hold it – the idea that bad governments can eventually be removed.

Robert Dahl, one of the 20th century’s leading democratic theorists, argued that what modern states offer is not democracy proper but polyarchy: competitive elections among elites, with limited but real citizen influence. By that more modest standard, Britain still qualifies. But Tombs and others are pointing at something real: the gap between election-time promises and governing reality has grown so wide as to corrode the legitimacy of the whole exercise.

Brexit is the obvious case study. The 2016 referendum produced a clear result. The 2019 general election reinforced it decisively. Yet a decade on, the current government’s tactic appears to be to avoid a popular vote and instead use so-called ‘Henry VIII powers’ to return the UK to the EU’s regulatory orbit – effectively nullifying the referendum without public debate or consultation. Whatever one thinks of Brexit’s merits, this raises a genuine constitutional question: if governments can simply legislate around inconvenient democratic outcomes, what exactly does a vote mean?

As Tombs notes, the precedent is not new. The Great Reform Act of 1832 was an earlier instance of the same manoeuvre: reformers used the language of change to reduce democratic participation, disfranchising working-class voters while buttressing the dominance of the propertied elite. The instinct of those in power to manage, constrain and ultimately frustrate popular will is as old as representative government itself.

A portrait of the political class

To understand whether this is a structural failure or merely a run of bad individuals, it is instructive to survey the figures who have occupied Britain’s highest offices across recent decades. The picture that emerges is not pretty – but it is also, importantly, bipartisan.

Keir Starmer came to power in July 2024 on an explicit platform of restoring integrity to politics after years of Conservative scandal. That promise unravelled with remarkable speed. Within weeks of taking office, it emerged that Starmer had failed to declare gifts worth several thousand pounds donated by Labour benefactor Lord Alli – the same donor who was given a security pass granting unrestricted access to Downing Street, raising accusations of ‘cash for access’ and cronyism.

Far more damaging has been the Mandelson affair. Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States in late 2024, despite Mandelson’s well-documented history of resignation from government over financial misconduct. Documents subsequently released by the US Department of Justice revealed that Mandelson appeared to have passed sensitive British government data to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving in a previous Labour administration. Starmer fired Mandelson in September 2025, but the crisis deepened when it emerged that Mandelson had failed his in-depth security vetting – and that Foreign Office officials had overridden the security services’ recommendation to reject him.

Starmer’s defence – that he was kept entirely in the dark – creates its own problem: either the prime minister was deceived about a major appointment, or he was not in control of his own government. In British politics, both explanations are damaging.

His chief of staff and director of communications both resigned in the aftermath. A YouGov poll in February 2026 found that a majority of respondents considered Starmer to be at least as sleazy as Boris Johnson – a devastating finding for a leader who had made personal integrity the centrepiece of his public identity.

Critics note, moreover, that Starmer’s dishonesty precedes the Mandelson affair: he campaigned for the Labour leadership on a soft-Left platform before abandoning his pledges; and he reversed positions on nationalisation, drug legalisation, immigration and gender before the election. He now governs in ways that bear little resemblance to what voters were offered.

Boris Johnson represents perhaps the most extensively documented case of a British prime minister treating accountability as an optional inconvenience. The Partygate scandal saw gatherings take place at Downing Street and other government buildings during Covid-19 lockdowns, at a time when such events were prohibited for the rest of the country.

Police issued 126 fixed penalty notices to 83 individuals, including Johnson himself, his wife and then-Chancellor Rishi Sunak. A subsequent Commons Select Committee concluded in a 106-page report that Johnson had repeatedly committed contempt of parliament; had he not already resigned as an MP, it would have recommended a 90-day suspension potentially triggering a by-election.

Johnson dismissed the findings as “deranged”. His resignation honours list then handed awards to several of those involved in the Partygate events themselves – a final, characteristically brazen act of institutional contempt.

David Cameron’s post-premiership conduct raises textbook questions about the revolving door between politics and finance. After leaving Downing Street, Cameron became an adviser to supply chain finance firm Greensill Capital, reportedly earning around 10 million dollars from the role.

When Greensill faced financial difficulties during the pandemic, Cameron lobbied the chancellor via text message to change rules allowing the company to access government-backed Covid loans. The government-owned British Business Bank ultimately lent Greensill up to £400 million through a separate scheme, leaving a potential £335 million loss to the taxpayer. Formal investigations found Cameron had not technically broken lobbying rules – though a treasury committee noted pointedly that this conclusion “reflects on the insufficient strength of the rules”.

Before that, Cameron had called the 2016 Brexit referendum (ironically, a rare act of true democracy that reshaped British politics) and then walked away from the consequences when the ‘wrong’ result was returned, reportedly humming to himself.

This directly led to Theresa May’s defining failure: her handling of Brexit, which affected the entire country for years and arguably shaped Britain’s trajectory for a generation. Tasked with implementing the largest democratic mandate in British history, she produced a withdrawal agreement so contorted and widely rejected that it failed to pass parliament three times, paralysed the legislature for the better part of three years and ultimately delivered a version of Brexit that satisfied neither Leavers nor Remainers.

In doing so, she exemplified a recurring pattern: the political class, faced with a democratic outcome it finds uncongenial, does not openly resist it but manages, delays and dilutes it until it bears little resemblance to what was voted for.

The social consequences of that protracted failure should not be underestimated. The period between 2016 and 2019 saw a profound polarisation of British society, in which the democratic act of voting Leave became, in many professional and institutional environments, something to be concealed rather than acknowledged. Remain voters, confident in the moral superiority of their position, created workplace and social climates in which those who had voted differently felt unable to express their views openly – a chilling irony in a country that had just conducted the largest democratic vote in its history, and a concrete illustration of the institutional contempt for popular will that Tombs identifies.

Tony Blair’s record combines genuine domestic achievement with controversies of a quite different order of magnitude. The Chilcot Inquiry’s report – described by the BBC as “damning”, by the Guardian as a “crushing verdict” and by the Telegraph as “scathing” – found that peaceful diplomatic options had not been exhausted before the invasion of Iraq, that the intelligence case was manipulated, that cabinet government was bypassed, and that exaggerated claims were made about threats to national security.

Blair was also questioned three times during the cash-for-honours scandal, in which peerages appeared to have been offered in return for party loans, though no charges were ultimately brought. None of this was the work of an ignorant man – Blair is by any measure highly intelligent and credentialled – but of one whose certainty outran his judgement, and who proved unwilling to be constrained by the normal checks of democratic accountability.

Gordon Brown’s tenure was defined above all by the 2008 financial crisis. While the collapse was global in origin, Brown had spent a decade as chancellor, repeatedly claiming to have abolished boom and bust, presiding over a vast expansion of private debt and financial sector risk, and substantially lightening regulatory oversight of the banks.

The collapse of Northern Rock in 2007 – the first British bank run in 150 years – occurred on his watch, and RBS subsequently required a £45 billion government bailout, the largest in history at the time. Brown’s government had also sold a substantial portion of Britain’s gold reserves between 1999 and 2002 at historically depressed prices – an episode so notorious it remains known in financial markets as ‘Brown’s Bottom’.

Potential future PM, Angela Rayner, meanwhile – still an MP despite her resignation from the cabinet – was found by the prime minister’s independent ethics adviser not to have met the highest possible standards of conduct, having underpaid stamp duty on a property purchased using proceeds from a complex trust arrangement involving her disabled son’s funds.

She had previously been cleared of separate allegations by both Greater Manchester Police and HMRC – yet the cumulative impression of a political class that arranges its affairs to its own advantage, and reaches for technicalities when challenged, is difficult to dispel.

The question of civic fitness

Surveying this record, it is tempting to conclude that the problem is simply one of personnel – that better politicians would produce better government. This conclusion is too comfortable.

The more searching question, and the one that political commentary is generally reluctant to ask, is whether the failures described above are not the cause of Britain’s democratic malaise but its symptom – the outward expression of a culture that has, over several generations, eroded the very habits of mind and character on which genuine self-governance depends.

The ancient Athenians understood democracy as inseparable from civic virtue – arete – and from active, informed, participation in public life. It was not a passive entitlement but a demanding practice. That conception has almost entirely disappeared from modern democratic culture, replaced by the idea that democracy is simply the right to vote every few years and otherwise be left alone.

When people understand citizenship primarily as a set of rights rather than responsibilities, the quality of democratic outcomes will reflect that impoverishment.

The cultural symptoms are worth naming honestly: a media environment that rewards outrage over accuracy; an education system that has progressively prioritised self-expression over knowledge and critical thinking; a significant portion of the electorate that struggles to distinguish between opinion and evidence; a culture in which victimhood confers status and grievance substitutes for argument; declining rates of reading, civic participation and community engagement; and the replacement of genuine political debate with tribal identity performance. None of these are trivial. Taken together, they describe a civic culture under serious strain.

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about democracy in the 1830s, warned that its greatest long-term danger was not tyranny from above, but what he called soft despotism from within – a society so absorbed in private comfort and small pleasures that it gradually surrenders responsibility for public life to whoever is willing to take it.

His description of citizens who timidly submit rather than actively govern reads as remarkably contemporary.

Edmund Burke’s view, from a more conservative direction, made the same point: that ordered liberty requires the prior existence of a certain kind of moral character in a people.

Parliament reflects the country; the country produces parliament. That loop is very hard to break from inside.

Social media and the degradation of democratic discourse

This civic deterioration has been dramatically accelerated by the rise of social media as the primary medium of political life – a development whose consequences for democracy are still being reckoned with, and which operate in two almost opposite directions simultaneously.

The first is the tyranny of the instant mob. Social media creates a mechanism by which a vocal, organised minority can apply overwhelming pressure to politicians in real time, forcing capitulations or reversals on policy that have nothing to do with the considered views of the broader electorate.

A politician who says something that offends an organised online group faces a coordinated storm within hours. The result is a political class that increasingly governs by fear of the next viral moment rather than by conviction or evidence.

This is not democratic accountability – it is the rule of whoever is most online and most angry, a form of power that selects for the extreme and the performative over the measured and the genuine.

The second is tribal capture. Politicians and media outlets have learned that the most reliable way to build and monetise an audience is not to persuade the unconvinced but to validate and inflame the already convinced.

This produces what has been called ‘filter bubbles’ – information environments in which people are exposed almost exclusively to views that confirm what they already believe. The result is not a democratic conversation but a series of parallel monologues, each tribe increasingly unable to comprehend the other’s worldview, let alone engage with it honestly.

My own personal experience of having voted Leave in the 2016 referendum and feeling compelled to conceal that fact in a professional environment is a direct product of this dynamic: the Remain tribe had so thoroughly defined its own moral universe that dissent from within became socially dangerous.

This is not an isolated or trivial phenomenon. It represents a fundamental breakdown in the democratic premise that citizens of differing views can coexist in a shared political community and resolve their disagreements through argument rather than exclusion.

Together, these two effects produce something particularly corrosive: a political culture that is simultaneously hyper-responsive to the wrong signals – the loudest, most organised online voices – and systematically unresponsive to quieter, more considered majorities. The ‘democratic will’ that emerges from elections is increasingly a manufactured product of algorithmic amplification, advertising spend and tribal mobilisation rather than genuine public deliberation.

A population whose political opinions are substantially shaped by social media algorithms is not the kind of citizenry the architects of liberal democracy had in mind – and the politicians who exploit those algorithms to build their ‘tribes’ bear significant responsibility for deepening the fractures they claim to be healing.

The historical question

The conventional response to democratic failure is to call for more and better democracy: stronger institutions, greater transparency, more deliberative processes. That answer deserves scrutiny it rarely receives.

Britain’s own historical record complicates the assumption that broadening democratic participation reliably produces better governance.

The Victorian era – a period of severely restricted franchise, with property qualifications limiting the electorate to a small minority – was also the period of Britain’s greatest domestic stability, its most consequential scientific and cultural achievement and its most formidable international standing. The Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 significantly broadened the franchise; they also coincided with the beginning of Britain’s long relative decline as a world power.

That correlation does not establish causation, and the period of elite governance oversaw mass poverty, child labour and severe inequality that is rightly held against it. But it does suggest that the relationship between democratic breadth and quality of governance is not the simple upward curve that progressive orthodoxy assumes.

The question of whether a society must first develop certain civic and cultural capacities before extending the franchise, rather than assuming those capacities will develop as a consequence of it, is one that mainstream political discourse has largely refused to ask – perhaps because the answer is too uncomfortable.

Are we actually ready for democracy?

This brings us to the question at the heart of the matter, the one that all the preceding analysis has been approaching: are we, as a society, currently responsible enough for democracy?

Not in some abstract philosophical sense, but in the practical sense of possessing the habits of mind, the civic culture, the tolerance for complexity and disagreement, and the willingness to prioritise the common good over tribal advantage that genuine self-governance requires.

The honest answer, surveying the evidence, is that Britain’s civic culture is in a weakened state – perhaps not yet terminal, but seriously stressed. The political class exploits the gaps that a credulous, distracted and tribally divided public creates for it.

Social media algorithms reward the behaviour most corrosive to democratic culture and penalise the nuance and honest uncertainty on which genuine deliberation depends.

An education system that has retreated from rigorous knowledge and civic formation has left large portions of the electorate poorly equipped to evaluate the claims made to them.

And a culture that has progressively replaced shared obligation with individual entitlement has eroded the sense of collective responsibility, without which self-governance is merely a slogan.

None of this is irreversible. Tocqueville believed that the habits of the heart – the civic dispositions that sustain free societies – could be cultivated as well as lost. But cultivating them requires acknowledging, honestly and without flattery, that they have been neglected. It requires political leaders willing to tell difficult truths rather than construct comfortable tribes. It requires media institutions willing to inform rather than inflame. And it requires citizens willing to accept the burden of self-governance rather than simply demanding its fruits.

As Tombs concludes, if Britain’s serious problems have a solution, it must be through the reassertion of democratic and patriotic national politics – a government willing to trust the electorate with hard truths, and an electorate ready to listen. The second half of that requirement is at least as demanding as the first.

Whether the conditions for that combination currently exist in Britain is, at best, an open question – and the answer depends not only on what happens in parliament, but on what happens in ourselves.

This article was originally published by the Daily Sceptic.