International Day of Democracy

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. It is an honour to speak on this topic, not only as an MP deeply invested in the state of our democracy, but as the representative of the Cities of London and Westminster, where we are today. I was stunned to learn that this House has not marked International Day of Democracy since 2017—and how much has changed since then. At home, we have seen Parliament unlawfully prorogued to push through a Government’s partisan agenda, restrictions introduced on voting and freedom of protest, and a Prime Minister who broke the stringent lockdown rules he set for a nation of millions.

My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.

Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.

Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.

Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that our democracy, and wider democracies around the globe, need to be sufficiently strong, wide and deep to tolerate views and opinions that we may fundamentally disagree with, but are allowed to be expressed peacefully and democratically?

I would agree. I will come on to some of the ways in which we can strengthen our democracy later. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member. This movement cannot be supported in espousing anti-British values.

My constituency is home to Soho, built from the ground up by migrants and the LGBT community living, working and organising together. It is home to the City of London, whose status as a heart of business and growth has been strengthened by waves of refugees fleeing persecution, such as the 16th-century Huguenots. It is home to Fitzrovia, the heart of artistic and academic excellence from generations of freethinkers. This is the London that I know and love, and this is the country that I know and love, and that the leaders of far-right movements want to take away from us.

We have seen what it looks like when our rights and freedoms are taken away in the experience of those such as my constituent Jimmy Lai, who as of today has been detained unlawfully for 1,721 days for standing up for freedom in Hong Kong. That China would feel emboldened to imprison a British citizen, a journalist, a grandfather, and put him through a sham trial is completely unacceptable.

Our rules-based international order, which upheld fundamental human rights, has decayed at a remarkable rate. Some in this country would degrade it further by withdrawing from and dismantling the European convention on human rights, which the United Kingdom founded and which enshrines fundamental British values such as the right to life, and the freedoms of speech and thought, on an international level.

I also see threats to democracy at local level, in my work as a constituency MP. The frustration, disillusionment and disappointment with which constituents contact us is just a small signifier of the strength and depth of the malaise in our democracy today. We must confront head-on the fact that our democracy is at a crossroads. Voters increasingly feel that the social contract between them and their leaders is wearing thin, with only 12% of them trusting the Government to act in the popular interest, above that of their party.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on renewing our democracy. First past the post served Labour and the Conservatives well in the 20th century, but the blowing open of electoral politics by smaller political parties means that many more people are now feeling under-represented. Does the hon. Member accept that it is time to replace first past the post with proportional representation?

I welcome the hon. Member’s suggestion about reviewing and considering the alternative ways in which we can conduct our democracy. I will come on to some of that later.

People feel that their vote does not matter, and that politicians are not listening. People feel that the system is broken and does not work for them. But we are not powerless. We are not just a solitary ship being buffeted by the tides of change. We sit today in the mother of all Parliaments, where, despite some weaknesses, the UK remains one of the most advanced and resilient democracies in the world. Our democracy means everyone does have a say. This place has adapted with the times, whether that is with the extension of the franchise, the tempering of the monarchy and the Lords or, most recently, the devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK by successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments.

I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that promised generational change to our democracy—changes that this Government are enacting. We are extending the franchise to the 16 and 17-year-olds we already trust to pay tax and serve in our armed forces. We are tackling the influence of dirty money in politics, with new restrictions on foreign donations and improved transparency, and restoring independence to the Electoral Commission.

The hon. Member mentioned young people. Last Friday, I met some A-level politics students at Huish Episcopi academy in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton and I was struck by the political enthusiasm of the young women in the classroom. However, we face an alarming rise of extreme misogyny through people like Andrew Tate. If women and girls feel that politics is hostile to them they retreat from it altogether, so does the hon. Member agree it is important that we show young women that there are political role models, so that they know their place is at the heart of British politics?

I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member on the work that she is doing to encourage and support young women into politics. That is something really important in our role as Members of Parliament. I definitely agree that we need to be supporting women into politics, as Members of Parliament and throughout public life, to give young women confidence that there is a place for them in public life.

We also need to push power to our communities and neighbourhoods with the landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with a community right to buy and a right for any area to ask any power of central Government. I think we can go further still. That is why I am so honoured to open this debate. It is inspiring to know that Members across Westminster Hall want to talk about our democracy and how we can have these debates together and openly.

I am delighted to be joined by colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, with whom I am working on the UK’s anti-corruption strategy. I know they will agree with me that we need to fight head-on the money and influence attempting to corrupt our politics. I am really pleased to see so many MPs present who share my background in local government and so keenly support this Government’s agenda to decentralise power out into communities. Residents in my constituency and across the country are raring to go to take on the responsibilities that for too long have been held in the Palace of Westminster, not the Cities of London and Westminster.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am very aware of her background in local government. Does she agree that the local level is where we see democracy work? We see excellent representation by councillors and an opportunity to have local debate through neighbourhood plans or other mechanisms. Does she agree that we must prioritise those local voices and that local representation to protect our democracy?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for that support for local councillors and the hard work that they do every single day working with communities. It is important that we support and empower them to deliver for communities. In fact, that is a vital part of restoring confidence in our democracy.

It is a pleasure to see members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, who are leading a wide-ranging discussion on the future of our electoral system. I know many of us across the House are concerned about the division that our electoral system has seen. It is right that we have a robust discussion about that. In recent polling for More in Common, 62% of voters stated that our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving in spite of the headwinds that we face. This is the country that I know: one that faces the challenges before us and acts to meet the moment. We can address the frustration and disillusionment that last weekend saw people marching in my constituency, while making our democracy richer and more inclusive.

Today let us mark International Day of Democracy by recognising the threats that face us and the opportunities that change can bring. I look forward to hearing from all the speakers gathered here today and from the Minister, what such change can and should look like.

I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Diolch yn fawr, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate. Today is Owain Glyndŵr Day, which celebrates Wales’s first Parliament in Machynlleth and in Harlech 620-odd years ago.

This past weekend Elon Musk addressed those gathered in London. He spoke about freedom of speech, about knowing what is real and defending Britain’s future and democracy. That is what he said, but at the heart of his remarks was an explicit justification for division and violence. That should concern us all because it is fundamentally at odds with the values of democracy. Mr Musk has already contributed to destabilising political life in the United States. His decision to intervene in our debates makes it clear that we are not immune, so parliamentarians—I think this will be a common theme across the Chamber today—must choose how to act to counter the rising tide of authoritarianism.

Silence is a dangerous form of consent that leaves the space open for others to harness people’s unhappiness to their own political ambitions when, in reality, much of that unhappiness is a direct result of decisions taken by those in power and the very wealthy—decisions that benefit themselves and, at the same time, impoverish whole communities.

Too many people have no secure roof over their heads. Too many of our public spaces, sources of community pride—our parks, libraries, schools, hospitals and even our roads—are left to decay. Public services are hanging on a thread, and the quality of day-to-day life is evidently declining. Years of austerity and poor policy decisions have very real consequences for people’s lives. We need to recognise that, because people are rightly angry.

Into that void of anger rushes misinformation, disinformation and lies straddling the no man’s land between empirical facts and tub-thumping opinion. Social media moguls play on our basic needs for belonging, affirmation and friends in an atomised age of lonely screens. They monetise us and our very actions in a cynical mockery of community. The rise of artificial intelligence exacerbates and accelerates that, creating new ways to generate and spread falsehoods. That is why institutions that strengthen democracy are so important, now more than ever.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.

To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.

Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.

On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,

“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.

Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.

At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.

As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:

“The left is the party of murder.”

I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.

Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.

It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution.