Would it be a failure of UK democracy if a majority of UK adults supported restoring the death penalty, but the UK Parliament consistently voted to maintain its abolition?

This essay will argue that it is a failure of UK democracy if a majority of UK adults supported restoration of the death penalty, but the UK parliament consistently voted to maintain its abolition. Firstly, this is because this stalemate shows that there are no checks and balances in place to maintain UK democracy. Moreover, this tension and friction between the UK masses and parliament shows that democracy is on the point of eroding. This essay will define 'democracy’, the Greek term meaning ‘rule by the people’, as a system of governing in which the general population has an equal say in any decision making. 

The consistent voting of UK parliament to maintain the abolition of the death penalty, even if the majority of UK adults support the opposite view, is a failure of UK democracy, as it shows that there are no checks and balances in place. Checks and balances are procedures prevalent in a democratic society that ensure power and decision making are not concentrated in one body. An example of where checks and balances are employed is in the US, through the ‘separation of powers’ principle. One role of these checks and balances is to ensure the protection of minorities and their basic human rights, a significant part of democracy. The checks and balances also prevent the abuse of power of a single body, another significant detail that the principle of democracy strives to eradicate. Thus, it can be said that in the instance of the UK parliament constantly voting against the general public, it means that checks and balances are not in place to reinforce UK democracy. Hence, without these checks and balances, UK democracy fails. 

However, some may argue that there is little need for these checks and balances in the UK because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty outlines that under the English constitution, the UK parliament has the final say in regards to making and unmaking laws. Thus, the UK parliament, in essence, has the right to make any law they want. Hence, because of the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, some might contend that the UK parliament does not need to take into consideration this majority view supporting the restoration of the death penalty. This is because it can make a law outlining the abolition of the death penalty if they deem it necessary. Despite this, it can be said that a certain level of checks and balances is still needed for UK democracy to work in tangent to the definition of democracy that this essay defined earlier.  Even with parliamentary sovereignty as a principle underlying law making, UK democracy still fails if parliament is the sole controller of all decisions. 

It can also be argued that this scenario is an example of UK democracy failing as it shows that various principles constituting the notion of democracy are disintegrating. James Fishkin outlines various characteristics that constitute a “deliberative democracy.” For example, he outlines that for a democracy to work, the majority of the people's views must be considered. Here, the UK parliament is ignoring the majority of UK adults. Moreover, Fishkin states that for democracy to function successfully, the parliament should substantially balance the arguments of the two sides, and conscientiously weigh up all merits and benefits. In this situation, there is no equal consideration of all arguments, since the UK parliament's side is given more heavy weighting. Considering all these factors, it seems to be that Fishkin’s concept of "deliberative democracy" fails. Hence, in this situation, UK democracy is evidently failing to work. Additionally, Fishkin states that in a democracy, lay citizens must participate in decision making. This is not the case if a majority of UK adults support restoration of the death penalty, but the UK parliament consistently votes to maintain its abolition, since it creates a centralised and narrow decision maker. 

On the other hand, many argue that UK democracy is not failing, as the concept of “illiberal democracy” still applies here. An illiberal democracy is a democratic governing system in which citizens are excluded from the activities of those who exercise power and law-making. It could be argued that the UK parliament consistently voting against the public excludes the citizens. Hence, some may contend that it is still a legitimate example of democracy. However, it can be argued that illiberal democracy is fundamentally undemocratic. This is since it ignores and bypasses the will of minority groups. It is also undemocratic as the rulers of an illiberal democracy may ignore or bypass constitutional limits on their power. So, it can be said that even if this was the way the system in the UK was working, it would still be an example of democracy failing. 

In conclusion, it seems to be that it would be a failure of UK democracy if a majority of UK adults supported restoration of the death penalty, but the UK Parliament consistently voted to maintain its abolition. This is since in doing so, the UK parliament is abandoning elements of democracy. However, it must be noted that everyone has a right to life under the 1998 Human Rights Act. And so, the decision to abolish the death penalty might be one that is in the interest of society. This can be seen in the fact that, since 2004, the UK has been signed up to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits the death penalty in any circumstances. To conclude, although this friction would principally be a failure of UK democracy, the government would be making a beneficial decision, even if the majority of UK adults disagreed.