Democracy & Participation (Edexcel A Level Politics): Exam Questions

Source 1(b) shows how opinions vary as to the condition and health of democracy in the UK. Chloe Smith, a former government minister, argues that democracy is doing well. However, the pressure group Unlock Democracy argues against this view.

(Source: Chloe Smith section © Crown Copyright and Unlock Democracy section source from: https://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/vision (opens in a new tab)

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK has a democratic deficit.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast different opinions in the sources

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the sources.

Evaluate the view that it is the media, not pressure groups, that have the greater influence on governments.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

Evaluate the view that neither individual rights nor collective rights in the UK are adequately protected and guaranteed.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

Source 2 depicts two letters with differing opinions printed in a newspaper concerning the importance and scope of the manifestos of political parties.

Using the source, evaluate the view that in a democracy MPs are free to ignore referendum results and their own political party’s manifesto.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Evaluate the view that the actions of pressure groups have been more significant than government legislation in defending and promoting rights in the UK.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

Evaluate the view that think-tanks, lobbyists and pressure groups have little impact on government decisions.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

This source is adapted from a report produced in 2004 by the Constitution Unit at University College London (UCL), called ‘Is Britain Facing a Crisis of Democracy?’ The report was based on a four-year research project on this issue.

‘On certain measures, Britain does, indeed, appear to be facing something of a participation crisis in its political system. Levels of trust in government and confidence in the political system are lower than they were little more than a decade ago. Electoral turnout has fallen sharply, most noticeably at the 2001 general election. Meanwhile, the introduction of new political institutions since 1997, designed in part to restore people’s trust and confidence, appears to have had little impact.

On the other hand, people do not seem more disengaged from the political system. Participation outside the ballot box has increased somewhat over the last fifteen or so years. Levels of political interest have not fallen, and people remain confident in their own ability to engage with the political process and to believe in the importance of voting at elections.

Perhaps the most reassuring evidence from our research is that which suggests the decline in trust and turnout is not due to long-term social forces, but to short-term political ones. The most plausible explanation for the decline in trust is the public reaction to allegations of misconduct and ‘sleaze’ on the part of politicians.

These conclusions suggest that the remedies for any ‘crisis’ largely lie in the hands of politicians themselves. Trust is acquired when words and actions accord with one another. And only a closely fought and clear competition between the parties appears to prompt many citizens to cast their vote. Meanwhile constitutional change should not be regarded as a quick fix. However it would be wise to look to measures to both reform and improve democracy in the UK. Hence, British democracy – and especially its politicians – certainly face a ‘challenge’. But talk of a ‘crisis’ is premature.’

(Source: by Catherine Bromley, John Curtice, and Ben Seyd – https://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/112.pdf)

Using the source, evaluate the view that there is a participation crisis in the UK.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Evaluate the view that direct democracy should play a greater role in the UK political system.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

Evaluate the view that the voting age should be lowered to 16.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

This source is adapted from a House of Commons Library research briefing, 'Lobbying in UK politics' (2025), which examines the role of lobbying in the UK political system.

Lobbying is generally considered to be good for democracy: it can introduce diverse (possibly overlooked) perspectives to policymakers, ensure that policies are well-informed, limit unintended consequences, and demonstrate the breadth and intensity of opposition or support for a measure. However, it can also be problematic. For example, it may allow people with privileged access to policymakers to pursue their own ends at the expense of the public. Some people therefore consider that lobbying undermines public confidence in democratic outcomes.

Elections happen only at a minimum every five years, so lobbying provides other opportunities for people, who may not be well represented in elections, to influence the policymaking process. Collaboration with experts can ensure that policies are well-informed and avoid unintended consequences.

It is common for lobbying to be criticised as undermining the public interest because of perceptions of privileged access, coupled with exclusivity and secrecy. As Lord Jonathan Evans, then Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, suggested in 2023, it becomes problematic when 'there is paid lobbying by vested interests in such a way that access to decision makers is kept secret or only available to those with the right contacts'. However, there is little public opinion research on how the UK public views lobbying, though a 2011 YouGov survey found that 54% of respondents thought that lobbyists have too much influence on politics.

(Source: adapted from House of Commons Library, 'Lobbying in UK politics', Briefing SN04633, 30 April 2025, by Sam Power. Available at commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04633)

Using the source, evaluate the view that lobbying undermines rather than enhances democracy.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

Evaluate the view that the success of a pressure group depends mainly on its wealth.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

Evaluate the view that lobbyists and corporations have too much influence over government.

You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way.

Source: adapted from House of Commons Library briefing CBP-9958, The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and from the House of Commons debate on the European Convention of Human Rights (Withdrawal) Bill, 29 October 2025.

The Human Rights Act 1998 aimed to "bring rights home", letting people enforce Convention rights in British courts rather than travelling to Strasbourg. Yet its critics note how conditional that protection is. Where a court cannot read a statute compatibly with those rights, it may issue only a declaration of incompatibility: this has no effect on the validity of the legislation, and the courts cannot overturn what Parliament has passed. The Act itself is an ordinary statute. A Bill of Rights Bill to repeal and replace it was introduced in 2022 and abandoned before second reading, but other legislation went on to limit how far the Act applied to the removal of asylum seekers to third countries, the release of prisoners, and the investigation of service personnel — diverging from the idea that rights are universal and apply to everyone regardless of conduct or status.

The threat is no longer hypothetical. Following a review by Lord Wolfson KC, which concluded that the Convention places significant legal constraints on government action over immigration, veterans and protest, the Conservative Party adopted withdrawal as policy. Moving his Withdrawal Bill in October 2025, Nigel Farage called membership "unfinished business", arguing that "we are not sovereign all the while we are part of the European convention on human rights". He objected that a single Strasbourg judge had grounded the 2022 Rwanda deportation flight, and that Article 8 family-life claims had blocked the removal of foreign offenders. Britain, he said, should return to the "birthrights of liberty and freedom" developed since Magna Carta rather than rely on "state-given" rights, which the state can withdraw.

Opposing the Bill, Ed Davey answered that this misrepresents what the Convention does. Britain was the first country to ratify it, and Churchill championed it. He pointed to families of patients who died at Stafford hospital, to the Supreme Court holding the Government accountable for the poor equipment that killed British troops in Iraq, to the Hillsborough families, and to victims of John Worboys who took the Metropolitan Police to court — all, he argued, only possible "because of these laws", which "help individuals hold the powerful to account". The Commons rejected the Bill by 154 votes to 96. The Convention is written into the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the trade agreement with the EU and the devolution settlements, and many of the same obligations bind the UK through UN treaties in any case. The present Government has committed to remaining a member — while seeking to narrow how certain articles are interpreted in asylum and immigration cases.

Using the source, evaluate the view that rights are inadequately protected in the UK.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

The following two articles disagree about whether the UK should make voting compulsory. Article 1 argues that it would strengthen democracy. Article 2 argues that it would damage it.

Using the source, evaluate the view that compulsory voting would strengthen UK democracy.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

The following two articles disagree about whether the UK should make greater use of citizens' assemblies, in which randomly selected members of the public hear evidence and deliberate on a policy question. Article 1 argues for expanding them. Article 2 argues against.

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK should make greater use of citizens' assemblies.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast the different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.