Healthy political discourse: what is it and why does it matter?

Healthy political discourse is vital for democracies to function well. In this post, Alan Renwick and Tom Fieldhouse set out five key elements of such discourse, highlight barriers that may be making achieving it increasingly difficult, and propose steps that policy-makers and others could take to support it.

Background

Healthy political discourse is a core feature of a well-functioning democracy. It can help to deliver many benefits to society, whereas unhealthy discourse has the potential to inflict great damage.

There is no definitive blueprint for what healthy discourse looks like. There is nevertheless widespread concern – in the UK and in many other countries – that the quality of political discourse is poor and that contemporary challenges, including polarisation and the nature of modern media, are placing it under increasing strain.

This briefing examines what healthy political discourse is and why it matters. It identifies some of the key factors that make maintaining healthy discourse difficult and highlights examples of unhealthy discourse. It considers what can be done to enable healthy discourse to flourish.

What is healthy political discourse?

Alongside other important constitutional principles – such as institutional checks and balances, free and fair elections, the rule of law, fundamental rights, and integrity and standards – healthy public discourse is an essential component of a well-functioning democracy.

Democracy is a process for making decisions. Citizens should be able to choose representatives who will serve their interests, and to hold those representatives to account for what they do. Policy-makers should be able to make and implement policy decisions that advance the public interest. People from all walks of life should feel included and able to participate actively. All these processes are underpinned by discourse – including discussion, debate, description, and commentary. This is generated by politicians, officials, campaigners, journalists, and members of the public. Healthy discourse enables such processes to run well, whereas unhealthy discourse inhibits them.

Continue reading

Sorting elections: the use of random selection in poll worker recruitment

With a general election due before the end of next year and numerous other elections set for the next 12 months, concerns have been raised about the ability to recruit enough temporary poll workers to staff polling stations, check voter ID and count the votes cast. Sarah Birch, Ferran Martínez i Coma and Rubén Ruiz-Rufino argue that sortition might provide a solution, allowing us to staff elections in the same way that we recruit jury members.

As the UK gears up for the 2024 electoral season, serious concerns are being voiced about the ability of local authorities to carry out the tasks entrusted to them. New requirements such as checking ID at polling stations have placed further strain on what was already a daunting challenge for many Electoral Returning Officers: staffing elections.

When we go to vote, few of us stop to think about the army of temporary workers who are regularly recruited to run polling stations and to count ballots. However, a recent report by the Association of Electoral Administrators has voiced considerable disquiet about the ability of local authorities to continue finding the people needed to do these jobs.

In the light of this, it would make sense for the UK to consider a system used in Spain, Belgium, Greece and a number of other countries: the recruitment of poll workers by lot (with training, compensation and exemptions). Juries have for centuries been composed via random selection, and this is a practice that has widespread legitimacy. Not only would such a system address the recruitment challenges faced by returning officers, it could very likely also help to address problems with popular confidence in the voting process and citizen engagement in elections.

Continue reading