Pros & Cons of Representative Democracy

Test yourself on Pros & Cons of Representative Democracy

Test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Advantages of representative democracy

Representative democracy can mean that decisions are made with expertise, represent the voting public, are practical, and decision-makers are held accountable.

Expertise

Representatives are better informed to make important political decisions as they often have greater expertise and knowledge than most of the population.
The public can be educated on public policy and current political issues.

Representation

Representatives can make sure that all in society are accounted for.
- Representatives can protect the interests of minority groups better than the majority of the population can when voting.
Representatives can put together the interests and demands of voters and make policy proposals that work best for everyone.
- Voters in direct democracies may have lots of different demands and difficulty comes when those decisions have to be enacted.

Accountability

The public and institutions can hold representatives accountable for their decisions.
- In direct democracies, it is harder to hold the people as a whole accountable.

Practicality

Citizens cannot be expected to always make decisions and so the election of representatives acting on their behalf is more practical and beneficial.

Disadvantages of Representative Democracy

Representative democracy can have some disadvantages, such as the exclusion of minorities, the limited accountability of representatives and when representatives don't act in the public's interest.

Low participation levels

If few people participate in the election of representatives, the representatives will not accurately reflect those they represent in parliament.
- Turnout for EU Parliament elections in the UK was 35.6% in 2014 and as a result, more marginal and radical parties have seats.
- In the 2015 General Election, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) won 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat, demonstrating how the first-past-the-post system can distort representation. In contrast, UKIP did not win any seats in the 2024 General Election, reflecting the decline of smaller parties in recent UK elections.

Inaccurate representation

A parliament may not have descriptive representation (where the representatives share characteristics with their constituents).
- 29% of MPs are privately educated, but only 7% of the UK is.
A parliament may not have substantive representation (where the representatives advocate on behalf of certain groups).
- For example, David Cameron supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013, despite not being part of the LGBTQ+ community.
It can be argued that a parliament needs to have both types to truly represent.

Self-interest

Representatives may choose to act in their own best interest, or in the best interest of a select few constituents, rather than all of them.
For example, debates around MP expenses scandals (2009) showed how some MPs misused public funds, reducing trust in representative democracy.

Delegates vs trustees

Representatives can act as delegates, expressing the views of those they represent, or as trustees, using their own judgement.
- Trustees have more freedom to decide what they think is best for their constituents.
If a representative acts as a trustee but voters expect them to act as a delegate, they may not be seen as accurately representing public opinion.