What comes next? Will Andy Burnham secure victory in the Makerfield by-election? Will Keir Starmer continue his campaign? Is Wes Streeting planning to run? Furthermore, can Reform party achieve success in the upcoming general election? Is the surge in support for the Green Party genuine? Speculations surrounding political outcomes persist. Recently, a newspaper editor reached out to me, inquiring about who would assume the role of prime minister by Christmas, as I was apparently on his list of informed sources. My response was uncertain, leading him to humorously remove me from that list.
My concern is that, regardless of who occupies the prime minister’s office by year-end, substantial attention will have been diverted from the core issue at hand. Voters aren’t merely disillusioned with the current government; they are losing faith in democracy itself. This pervasive sense of skepticism is evident in opinion polls, focus groups, and the demeanor of the electorate. Politicians are aware of this discontent, which is contributing to a sense of ungovernability in the country.
A crucial aspect often overlooked in discussions about the challenges of governance is that effective leadership is impossible in a landscape devoid of trust. It’s akin to a toxic work environment lacking psychological safety. The adage “culture eats strategy for breakfast” rings true here. Achieving necessary reforms and actions requires public trust, without which, failure is inevitable.
We find ourselves trapped in a damaging cycle: public distrust leads to governmental ineffectiveness, which in turn exacerbates that distrust. This downward spiral is accelerating, prompting voters to consider increasingly unconventional alternatives, as they question whether anything could be worse. Indeed, this is a manifestation of democratic decline—a democratic crisis.
Currently, I see no substantial political solutions to this crisis beyond the vague notion of “we must deliver,” which lacks legitimacy and therefore fails to resonate. Both far-right and far-left factions sidestep complex discussions by offering oversimplified and impractical solutions, while centrist positions often become mired in details. Tony Blair has suggested that strong leadership is required, but his examples—focusing on technology and powerful elites—miss the underlying issue. It is not about imposing more authority on the populace for their benefit; rather, it is about actively listening to the public and providing them with a voice, thereby rebuilding legitimacy and fostering hope.
My proposed approach is to enhance democracy rather than diminish it. Instead of forsaking democratic principles in line with global trends, the individual who ultimately leads the country by year-end must strive to revitalize democracy and mend the fractured relationship between the state, its institutions, and the citizens. It is essential to restore faith in the democratic process. But what would that entail?
Democracy requires a new framework. Implementing proportional representation and adopting strategies like compulsory voting, similar to Australia’s system, could help ensure that every vote carries equal weight. More urgently, the everyday experience of democracy must evolve. While citizens’ assemblies are beneficial for addressing significant policy dilemmas such as assisted dying and social care, there are now innovative methods to involve citizens, leveraging AI and decentralizing power to communities, thus making individuals feel acknowledged and engaged. This approach could expedite decision-making while mitigating risks.
Additionally, democracy necessitates a new system for service delivery. Trust in governmental bodies is eroded with each minor indignity experienced in public services, which often appear dismissive and unresponsive. This creates an environment where service rationing masquerades as administrative errors or, at worst, is blamed on the individuals themselves. Blair’s emphasis on “choice and competition” from the 2000s, which faltered in the face of post-2008 austerity, should be replaced with a reform agenda centered on respect, aiming to prevent issues before they arise and fostering more humane interactions. This shift could lead to greater efficiency overall.
Furthermore, democracy needs a revamped information system. The detrimental effects of social media have fragmented the shared narratives essential for informed citizenry and meaningful debate. The channels of information that democracy relies on have become increasingly unreliable. Strengthening institutions like the BBC and supporting local news outlets are crucial steps to combat misinformation and fill the informational voids across the country. Social media companies must be held accountable for promoting credible and verified information sources, with existing broadcasting regulations adapted for the digital landscape. Media literacy must also be prioritized.
Finally, there must be a new agreement between the state, citizens, and markets. The government should address the excesses of market forces, particularly as we navigate the technological disruptions posed by AI, ensuring that future economic growth is equitable. Citizens also have a role to play, which may involve making short-term sacrifices, such as increased taxation. However, the burden cannot fall solely on the populace.
This new deal requires transparency regarding the challenges ahead and courage in implementing necessary changes. Building trust must occur concurrently with these efforts. This represents the crucial project of our era: to repair the fractured relationship between the state and its citizens while modernizing democracy.
Significant historical changes often unfold too slowly for media coverage yet too rapidly for scholarly analysis. The deterioration of democracy exemplifies this phenomenon. The prevailing narrative of politics as a competitive sport overlooks the broader implications.
We stand at a perilous juncture. The urgency of the democratic crisis intensifies as political cycles draw to a close, with the struggle for political survival overshadowing concerns about the resilience of democracy. The process of destruction is far more straightforward than that of reconstruction. Immediate political leadership is essential to modernize democracy and address this moment of critical risk.
While I cannot predict the identity of the prime minister by Christmas, I am convinced that if the focus does not shift towards restoring democracy while there is still an opportunity, the specifics of leadership may ultimately be inconsequential.
Polly Curtis serves as the chief executive of Demos.
