I feel Winston Churchill was correct when he implied, during a 1947 speech in the House of Commons, that of all political systems, democracy is the least of all evils. There is no perfect political system, but democracy is the best we have. What makes the democratic process flawed is the fact that it requires the masses’ trust to make the most informed, knowledgeable, unbiased, and unselfish decision possible—rarely are these traits applicable to our fellow man.
The tyranny of the majority is a real issue that should not be disregarded. In the U.K., there is a dilemma between smaller seated parties desiring proportional representation, which contrasts with the first-past-the-post system, supported by the two main political parties: the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. The argument for proportional representation is that it can increase the share of seats in the House of Commons based on a popular vote, a form of direct democracy. This could certainly create a “big tent” government where multiple parties and views have a say in governmental affairs. The downside is quite concerning. Proportional representation can allow extremist parties to rise and gain excessive power, if not ultimately win as the governing party. To achieve this, they may use dishonest tactics, manipulating information so that the masses become misinformed through propaganda, charisma, emotion-driven populism, and demagoguery. Once such a party gains power, they may have the means to turn their government into a dictatorship, as occurred in the 1930s under Nazi rule.
In an optimistic, utopian view, direct democracy—where citizens vote on laws and policies directly rather than through elected representatives—seems ideal. But we do not live in a utopia, and we never will. No matter how much we progress as a species, there will always be conflict among us. Even if we were to advance technologically and communicate with intelligent alien life, a new problem of competing—and potentially conflicting—with extraterrestrials would arise. Beyond that, the nature of the universe itself could disrupt our political progress at any given time. At some point, we may draw closer politically as a species, but we will then face the challenges of space colonisation. These scenarios are hypothetical, but the problem of human conflict—and the fact that it is often caused by the general ignorance of the majority—is not.
Moreover, the democratic process is inherently flawed because it relies on the assumption that the electorate is capable of making rational, informed decisions. This is a lofty expectation, given that many voters are influenced by misinformation, emotional appeals, and partisan loyalty rather than objective analysis. The rise of social media has only exacerbated this issue, creating echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their preexisting beliefs. This environment fosters division and hinders the ability to reach consensus on critical issues.
Despite its flaws, democracy remains the best system we have because it allows for the possibility of change and adaptation. Unlike authoritarian regimes, democratic governments can be held accountable by their citizens and are more likely to reflect the will of the people. However, for democracy to function effectively, it requires an informed and engaged electorate. This means investing in education, promoting media literacy, and encouraging critical thinking skills among the populace.
It is a shame, if my generalisation here is correct, that so many people in the West vote without sufficient knowledge of political philosophy. The vast majority of voters often lack even a very basic understanding of the policies they are supporting, frequently due to biases that influence their perception of the political parties they favour. Conversely, there are many who do not vote, despite the importance of doing so.
Non-voters may claim that they see no point in voting. Yet, I believe this is often a mask for the fact that they lack an understanding of who and what they would be voting for, nor do they care to know, as the average person perceives politics as either boring, depressing, or a mix of both. People lack significant self-reflection on their biases and prejudices, often assuming their distorted views to be the righteous ones. They frequently vote based on emotion rather than logic, reason, or evidence. Is this entirely their fault? I cannot answer with certainty, but I would not hesitate to point a finger at them as well as at the media, which sensationalises political leaders. Many uninformed voters seem to support the leader of a particular party based on perceived relatability, charisma, or a superficial impression of being a politician of the people. Putting it less politely: a populist demagogue. These voters fail to consider that politicians might be deceiving them, even as they consume tabloids and listen to speeches where such politicians are plainly dishonest and persuasive salespeople. Yet, it is unfortunate to witness that the least informed individuals, like those I am describing, tend to be the ones that vote.
I have known many people who vote, and continue to vote, for erroneous reasons. They agree with and perhaps only focus on one policy, such as anti-immigration. They think the leader is “just like them” or someone they can “relate to.” Or maybe, they vote for them simply because everyone else they know does (crowd psychology). Or lastly, they base their decision on a superficial judgement like the physical appearance, name, sex or mannerisms of the political leaders that are competing for the position of high office.
Psychology and philosophy are deeply entwined with politics beneath the surface. These are the factors that truly drive political decisions, often unbeknownst to voters themselves. Scoffing at the relevance of psychology and philosophy, as I have seen some do, only highlights the naïve judgements of the average voter. Due to these natural inclinations, those lacking at least rudimentary knowledge of political philosophy, history, and its connection to sociology and psychology should be encouraged to improve their insight before even considering making the journey to the ballot box.
To reiterate an interesting dilemma: whilst a significant portion of the Western population does not vote in government elections due to a lack of basic understanding and obliviousness to the importance of politics, many of those who do vote are gullible, short-sighted, and lack the capacity to compare policies meaningfully. Many also vote out of longstanding allegiance to a particular party. In my view, only a minority of voters approach the ballot with scepticism, nuance, and an open mind.
It is important to emphasise that, in voting, one is supporting a party and its policies, not merely an individual politician. The general public often makes the mistaken assumption of voting solely based on a politician’s media appeal, without fully understanding that they are voting for a comprehensive set of policies collectively established by the party. I must confess that I personally do not revere any politician, as they are like salespeople—deceptive and lacking veracity. But when election time comes, still, one must choose among the best of a horrid bunch.
It’s not dictators and radical politicians that scare me; it’s the people who vote for them. The true danger lies not in figureheads but in the masses that empower them. These voters, often swayed by fear, misinformation, or blind loyalty, are the real architects of tyranny. Voters who fall for demagoguery are under the delusion that their so-called leaders and saviours represent the ‘working man’—that they are just average Joes, like the guy at the post office. It’s a fantasy. Those who support the populist radical right end up with the elites they claim to despise: multibillionaires like Trump and Musk, and the outlandish Vivek Ramaswamy, who quickly secured cabinet roles after Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential victory. It’s no surprise that those who succumb to disinformation and back simple-speaking populist demagogues are often uneducated and uninformed. This is the breeding ground for an idiocracy.
Those who control and dictate the media are more intelligent than their consumers. They understand the power of narrative and the art of manipulation. Media moguls craft stories to shape public opinion, knowing full well that their audience will consume them uncritically. The consumers, by contrast, are often passive, accepting what they are fed without a second thought. Media consumers often do not know how, or are unwilling, to think more critically, sceptically, and analytically. This is far from the ideal of an informed and engaged citizenry. Expecting the average person to become a critical thinker is an immense challenge, one unlikely ever to be realised. Even with early education, psychological differences among individuals mean that each person’s cognitive framework is unique, shaped by a myriad of factors that education alone cannot overcome. The reality is that the media’s influence is pervasive and insidious, seeping into every corner of culture, shaping people’s perceptions and beliefs. The challenge is not simply to educate but to fundamentally change how people think, how they consume and why they form decisions. Until that happens, we remain at the mercy of those who control the narrative, and by extension, society’s perceived reality.
