Return to Discussion Group
Can Democracies Address Long-term Issues?
Britain’s democratic system emerged through a gradual and often erratic process of evolution, beginning in the thirteenth century. It was shaped by a continuous struggle for power between monarchs, nobles, and tradesmen. Until the nineteenth century, the electorate was far from representative, comprising only a fraction of the (male) population. Even into the early twentieth century, the nobility retained the authority to veto legislation. There was never a grand blueprint for governance, nor a systematic evaluation of its effectiveness. Yet, Britain’s democracy was once admired across the civilised world, fostering the Industrial Revolution, enabling the expansion of the British Empire, and ensuring health, safety, and security for its citizens during and after the World Wars.
However, since the Suez Crisis of the 1950s, Britain’s global power and influence have diminished significantly. The country no longer commands the leadership it once did. As Ian Dunt argues in How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t, and Sam Freeman in Failed State, the British democratic system suffers from a lack of expertise, short-termism, and an unwillingness to delegate authority.
This challenge is not unique to Britain — democracies across Europe are grappling with similar struggles. They face increasing difficulty in competing economically and politically with their strategic rivals in North America and Asia.
Political scientists argue about when the power and influence of the United Kingdom began to decline. Few would place it as late as the Suez Crisis in 1956. Some say it began with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Others point to the Boer War of 1899, and some even argue that the Crimean War in 1856 marked the beginning of the decline.
Hi Dan, it’s an interesting question. Decline for a nation must be a process rather than a specific date. Although specific events can provide clear indications that a nation is no longer what it was, or can longer do what it once could, they must be part of a process. A nation’s domination and/or influence can be measured in multiple ways: economic, political, diplomatic, military, cultural influence etc. Each of these can change quite separately, or in related ways. There must also be a question of absolute versus relative decline. In the short term all of this would make the question very complex and quite hard to assess, although over the longer-term decline will become clear.
It seems to me that the United States is currently going through a process of decline somewhat similar to that experienced previously by Britain. Whilst the US is still the dominant economic and military power in the world, other nations have clearly been catching up for many decades. The US has continued to grow it’s absolute economic and military strength during this time, but in relative terms it no longer holds the same dominance that it once used to. Similarly, in broader cultural terms, whilst the US way of doing things is still hugely influential across the world, there are now alternatives that are challenging that. You can see this even in terms of music, art, films, literature and fashion.
I think that the relative decline of the US is having a big effect on Britain. Following World War II Britain allied itself closely with the US as a way to mitigate its decline. But now Britain is allied to a superpower whose own hegemony is on the wane. I feel that all of this contributes hugely to the feelings of transition, uncertainty, and sometimes even chaos, that are prevalent today.