The Constitution Unit has published the final report from its three-year research project examining public attitudes to democracy in the UK. In this post, authors Alan Renwick, Meg Russell, and Ben Lauderdale summarise the report’s findings. The public care about democracy. They want high standards in public life, robust checks and balances, and better education and information about politics. The topics covered in this blog will be discussed in more detail at a webinar on Monday 27 November. Tickets are still available via the Unit’s website, and free of charge.

Public attitudes towards the democratic system matter. If people disengage, their views and interests go unrepresented. If they do not trust those in charge, that makes the careful trade-offs and compromises that are essential to effective policymaking harder.

Over the last three years, we have therefore conducted detailed research into the state of public attitudes towards the UK’s democratic system. The project – called Democracy in the UK after Brexit – has examined attitudes to the system as a whole and to its various components parts. In the wake of unusually intense debates about how the constitution ought to function – prompted by Brexit and a Prime Minister who appeared to reject many established constitutional norms – the project has explored what roles people think should be played by the central components of the system, including parliament, government, courts, and the public.

We have previously published three reports presenting the findings from different aspects of the research: two on large-scale surveys of public opinion, conducted by YouGov in 2021 and 2022; and the report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Democracy in the UK, which met in late 2021. Today we are publishing the project’s final report, which draws these findings together, adds substantial new analysis, and reflects on key lessons for policy-makers.

Findings

As the report sets out in detail, most survey respondents and citizens’ assembly members were deeply dissatisfied with the state of democracy in the UK. Above all, they wanted politics and politicians to be honest – the following chart is one of several illustrations of this point in the report. They also wanted politicians to be representative of and responsive to the public, and to serve the public interest. They were deeply concerned – and offended – by what they perceived as low standards in public life.

In thinking about possible reforms to the democratic system, participants often faced two conflicting priorities. On the one hand, they wanted voters to be in charge. They therefore thought that those who make important decisions should be elected by and accountable to voters, and they wanted governments to have the power to implement manifesto commitments. On the other hand, they did not think power should be too concentrated. That was partly for a negative reason: they distrusted politicians to pursue the public interest. But it was also partly for more positive reasons: most participants valued careful, considered decision making in which evidence is weighed and experts, as well as the diverse views of the public, are heard. The chart below highlights some of the evidence on this.

Between these two priorities of wanting governments to be able to act but being wary of concentrated power, it was usually the latter that participants focused on more. This had two implications.

First, few respondents supported ‘strongman’ politics, where a single leader or leadership group could operate unconstrained by the rule of law or the need for parliamentary approval. Much has been written in recent years about the rise of strongman leaders around the world, and the UK has been proposed as an example of that trend. As the following chart shows, however, the evidence of this project suggested there may be less public appetite for such an arrangement than previous studies have found.

Second, more concretely, most participants wanted a robust system of checks and balances. They wanted a strong parliament that can represent all points of view, scrutinise proposals, and hold those in power to account. They wanted courts to be able to uphold the rule of law and protect vital rights and liberties. They preferred an impartial civil service and independent, impartial media organs. They wanted politicians to be more responsive to public opinion than they thought was currently the case, and considered that this could be realised in part through mechanisms such as petitions, referendums, and citizens’ assemblies. But they also thought that these mechanisms should themselves be subject to constraints to enabling thoughtful and inclusive public debate. The chart below illustrates the first of these points; evidence on all the others is contained in the report.

The research identifies some divergences of opinion on these matters across the population. Notably, those who voted for the Conservatives in the 2019 general election or (to a lesser extent) Leave in the Brexit referendum of 2016 tended to be more favourable towards concentrating power in the hands of the executive than were others – who voted for Remain or for other parties. The former groups also expressed somewhat more ‘populist’ ideas about democracy as a whole, being more favourable to speedy decision-making by elected leaders, whereas the latter exhibited more ‘liberal’ views that emphasised deliberation, inclusion, and checks and balances. But such differences were not as great as might have been expected, and should not be exaggerated. To some extent they may simply reflect that these respondents were more aligned with the politicians currently in power, so were less motivated to check that power (only future research when a different party is in power will be able to explore this fully). The evidence suggests that the public in the UK do not hold polarised visions of democracy.

Implications for policy-makers

Caution is important when drawing out policy implications from such findings. First, research is inevitably conducted in a particular context. Ours took place between July 2021 and September 2022 amidst mounting public perceptions that those in power were a law unto themselves, fed by scandals relating to Dominic Cummings, Matt Hancock, Owen Paterson, and ‘Partygate’. Trust in politicians and confidence in the system may have been especially low at this time – though, as the report shows, the public’s views at this time were not wholly exceptional. Second, public attitudes on how the democratic system should be structured are not necessarily well founded. Even the members of our citizens’ assembly thought that their conclusions deserved close attention but should not be seen as definitive.

Nevertheless, work to restore public confidence is badly needed. If people – including those who have engaged with diverse experts and deliberated together in a citizens’ assembly – see a need for significant change, that should be taken seriously.

Of all the topics covered in the research, participants were most unequivocal and passionate about the need to uphold standards in public life. Some politicians have recently appeared to doubt that voters care about standards, believing that delivery is all. This research shows them to be wrong. Low standards corrode confidence, to the detriment of the democratic system as a whole. A stronger and more independent standards system could help to address this: the chart below, for example, shows strong support for the view that independent regulators should be able to launch investigations into alleged failures on the part of minsters. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and others have set out proposals for such changes. Beyond that, politicians, campaigners, and those in the media all have responsibilities that deserve to be reflected on.

Turning to the role of checks and balances, public attitudes appear to chime with the views of most experts. Both survey respondents and members of the citizens’ assembly saw it as crucial for parliament – as the body that represents all points of view and all parts of the country – to play a central role in the policy process. Mechanisms for achieving this include giving MPs greater control over the parliamentary agenda, limiting the use of delegated legislation, strengthening public bill committees, and allowing a greater role for private members’ bills. Reform to the system of appointments to the House of Lords would, meanwhile, help reduce reputational damage to parliament: faced with a choice between appointments by the Prime Minister or by an independent body, respondents overwhelmingly chose the latter. The message from the research in relation to some other checks and balances is very clear: politicians should not mess with the impartiality of the civil service or the BBC, or – as illustrated below – with the ability of the courts to prevent abuses of power. Public wariness over weakening court powers is particularly noteworthy in light of recent events.

A final theme concerns the role of the public. Cleaning up standards in public life could help re-engage people in politics: many are fed up with the state of political discourse and are inclined therefore to disengage. Politicians could do more to show that they are listening seriously: government could avoid responding to public petitions dismissively, for example, but instead treat them as opportunities for genuine dialogue. One reason people do not engage with politics is that they feel they do not understand it, so better education about politics and media literacy could help. Media organs such as the BBC should likewise continuously seek new ways of conveying information and discussion that both attract audiences and serve the health of democracy. And there is evidence that greater use of deliberative processes such as citizens’ assemblies – if embedded meaningfully into the policy-making process – can help to encourage more thoughtful dialogue.

Our report is not the place to set out a detailed programme for such political reforms. But we hope the evidence that it presents will serve to spur policymakers to investigate the options seriously.

This blogpost summarises the Unit’s latest report, The Future of Democracy in the UK, which was published as part of our Democracy in the UK After Brexit project. The other reports from that project can be viewed on the Unit website, and the topics covered in those reports will be discussed at a Unit webinar on Monday 27 November. Tickets for that event are still available and free of charge.

About the authors

Alan Renwick is Professor of Democratic Politics at UCL and Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit.

Meg Russell FBA is Professor of British and Comparative Politics at UCL and Director of the Constitution Unit.

Ben Lauderdale is Professor of Political Science at UCL.