Unfortunately, most modern states are too big and too populous, with citizenship extended to include all adult residents or, at least, the vast majority of them, and no single assembly could be convened to take such votes. Moreover, whereas the privileged Citizens of an ancient city-state would generally be wealthy and well-informed, a more universal understanding of citizenship must include people less interested in public affairs and less able to understand complex issues. Such people are easily manipulated by propagandists or those claiming expertise which might or might not be reliable. Indeed, even Athenian democracy was not truly democratic when one considers the majority of inhabitants were not Citizens.

Democracy is therefore interpreted as meaning representative democracy in which the populace elects representatives to serve in the decision-taking bodies of the State on its behalf. This immediately creates a division between the ordinary citizen and the representatives who are likely to become a political elite unless precautions can be taken to prevent that. Questions then arise around the representative body, such as:

• what is its purpose?
• should its power be limited?
• how can it be controlled?
• how long should it last?
• who, in particular, does each elected member represent?
• how should votes be counted and seats allocated?

These questions will normally be settled by some sort of constitution; either a written law of laws which determines exactly how everything else must be done, or a set of protocols, precedents, and processes designed to ensure the same effect in practice. However, if these should prove inadequate, it is still possible for dictators to arise and abuse them for their own ends.

Democracy is difficult to achieve partly because it is difficult to define. The questions around representation mean it is impossible to come up with a solution which will pass as truly democratic in the eyes of all observers. True representation is impossible in a society where the range of public opinion is infinitely variable across different areas of interest among different individuals over a period of time where every representative is also a complex mixture of opinions, knowledge, and understanding; nobody else can truly represent me and I don’t exactly represent anyone else.

Democracy, then, will always be an approximation. No political system can be fully democratic, but we should aim to make the system as democratic as is consistent with good government, and here lies a problem; good government is often inconsistent with the raw will of the majority for the reason stated above. Many voters will not appreciate the subtle injustices or follies of some of their desires, meaning popular policies could have side effects they would not desire if they happen to them. To protect the vulnerable, democracy actually needs a brake to ensure hasty changes to achieve short-term ends do not harm sections of society or long-term prospects. There is a need for balance.

The problem, then, is where should that balance fall? It will be a matter of judgement, and one person’s judgement will differ from another’s, so that is also a matter for democratic scrutiny, where the decision must be a collective one taken with care and adjusted as time and experience guide our response to the result.

A good constitution therefore needs to balance the fairest possible democratic representation in decision-taking bodies with a brake on the elected government’s power in order to prevent it effecting change in the interest of short-term fashion which could cause unforeseen harm. It also needs to be sufficiently adaptable to evolve and endure through changing circumstances to achieve its core purpose of maximising public freedom and good without becoming a barrier to changing needs. The British system, despite its many shortcomings, has achieved that well, having evolved over more than a thousand years. By contrast, countries with written constitutions tend to find themselves either having to adopt a new one from time to time, sometimes after a violent revolution, or stuck with antiquated limitations which prevent a response to changing circumstances, as with the US “right to bear arms” which might have made sense in an age of muskets and no police force, but is problematic in a modern State with law and order where weapons include machine guns and rocket launchers.

Unfortunately, what was achieved in the past is no guide to the future, and even the British system, in the name of democracy, is in danger of losing that essential brake which keeps democracy under control and prevents it rushing headlong into the latest fashionable disaster. The danger of promoting the illusion we need ever more democracy rather than ever better democracy is that it becomes a means for the powerful, intentionally or unintentionally, to undermine the safeguards which protect the majority from manipulation by the few. I would argue this process of moving to a more public show of democracy while moving away from the true purposes of democracy has accelerated in recent decades and is now beginning to endanger the very rights and freedoms democracy is intended to protect. This process has gone much further in some other countries and our media often point to those countries where elections are rigged or voters and candidates are so tightly controlled the outcomes are predictably in line with the current governments’ desire. However, this is not a reason to think the same thing is not also happening here or that we could not go the same way. I would argue the same mechanisms which enable these sham democracies abroad are also present in various stages of development in our own system and those of other countries we consider democratic. In other chapters I shall look at some of these tendencies so we can be more aware of the dangers they pose.