Elections: the Ultimate Representation of Democracy or a Show?
‘In recent years, people have been driven to vote against someone rather than for someone.’
By Maia Bergenheim, BA Global Development 28/10/2024
The concept of elections is assumed to hinge on citizens’ choice for rightful representation, but does the narrow list of voting options ever lead to the happiness of voters?
We have all heard of 2024 as the year of elections, where 76 countries have given and will be giving their populaces a chance to vote. While some elections have not had any meaningful influence on governments (such as in Russia, Belarus, Algeria, Mexico, etc.) many are supposed to be the ultimate proof of democracy (such as in France, USA, UK, etc.).
In theory, democratic elections should offer citizens the freedom to choose candidates who will best represent their values. However, many do not feel portrayed by their government; perhaps, elections are not as free and democratic as they present. In recent years, people have been driven to vote against someone rather than for someone.
This idea has been ironically notable in the West where democracy is expected to thrive. In France, individuals voted for the Nouveau Front Populaire to eradicate the far-right party, the Rassemblement National. In the UK, people strategically voted to eliminate the Tories. This effort in both cases may be effective in getting rid of the ‘bad guys’, but it evidently erodes the legitimacy of elections as a true representation of the people’s will. People are not voting for whom they wish to preside but for whomever has better chances of winning against the ‘evil’ party.
While the French may present a greater variety of candidates to people and thus greater freedom to choose, this year looked different. Rassemblement National was ahead in the polls, forcing multiple left-wing parties to merge into one, the Nouveau Front Populaire. Although a smart move which has avoided the rise of a fascist France, the Nouveau Front Populaire barely succeeded in gaining the confidence of left-wing voters. Many did not align with the merged values and people showed a particular dislike towards Mélenchon. I guess, it’s still better to risk having a dramatic prime minister who has a good left-wing party following, rather than a fascist government that praises a man who supposedly soiled his pants (Bardella).
Similarly with the UK, despite a lack of choice range, one would assume Keir Starmer would perform better than previous conservative leaders (notably, Lettuce Truss). Starmer ran a risk-free campaign promising a list of hopefuls, from not raising income taxes to higher wages for NHS staff… and now won’t do anything. After being in office for only three months, Keir Starmer has already lost many supporters; about one in five Labour Party voters regret their decision.
Beyond the phenomenon of ‘the lesser of two evils’, one must also pay mind to the fact that there are only two evils to choose from to begin with. The US is the perfect example to illustrate how elections confine us to the action of voting for either a racist orange man with sexual harassment allegations, or a liberal feminist with a questionable moral compass. Harris may be breaking the glass ceiling, but support of an ongoing genocide does not align with her feminist facade.
One can then contend that elections do not actually answer citizens’ wishes.
The purpose we serve in elections is to extensively analyse candidates and their manifestos in order to decide who is ‘okay’ to vote for. Nevertheless, the lucky winner is usually the one that will lead a less than ‘okay’ government. In France, after the left-wing Nouveau Front Populaire won, Macron appointed a republican as PM, going completely against the, so-to-say, democratic elections. UK citizens are struggling just as hard, as Keir Starmer continuously opposes public opinion such as when he cut winter fuel payments for everyone except the poorest pensioners. As for the US, Project 2025 will still proceed even with the predicted victory of Kamala Harris.
The authenticity of democratic elections is clearly deteriorating. We choose the option that will do the least harm rather than the one that will do the most good. Even when we truly vote for whom we wish to see lead, our voice is rarely heard and acted upon. To address these issues we need to rethink how elections are conducted and evaluate candidate nomination; it is not enough to merely show up to vote.
