Is research more democratic than elections?

Is research more democratic than elections? That was the question asked of participants last night in a debate hosted in a committee room at the Palace of Westminster. It was a timely question and setting, coming less than a week after the UK voted on whether to change the way politicians are elected to a system whose supporters claim is more representative of the public’s wishes.

The theme of representativeness was central to the arguments of those on the side of research, chiefly GfK NOP’s Nick Moon who said that the UK voting system as it is, built to support a ‘trustee’ model of democracy, “can only be simplistically said to give power to the people”.

The ‘first past the post’ system has on many occassions delivered strong majorities in parliament for parties that have barely reached 45% of the popular vote, let alone the 50-plus percent that one might consider necessary to claim a mandate from the people.

Indeed, Moon said one benefit of research was that it could stop a government “claiming a mandate it doesn’t have” – either by using opinion polls to show that the public disagrees with a particular policy, or as in the case of Ukraine in 2004/5, when exit polls differed from the ‘official’ outcome of a presidential vote, by helping the public force out illegitimate rulers.

Penny Young, the chief executive of the National Centre for Social Research, supporting Moon, said “research, rather than elections, gives the loudest, most enduring voice to the widest range of people”, and not just in the political sphere. She made the point that much of what is important in people’s lives is delivered by corporate institutions, and it is through research that people are able to exercise influence over the products and services they rely on.

But that influence extends in the corporate world only as far as it does in politics, suggested a voice from the floor. Whether expressing your opinion in the ballot box or in a survey, the ultimate power of decision-making rests with the MP or client.

This is right and proper, argued Vernon Bogdanor, a King’s College professor of contemporary history, a constitutional expert and a former tutor of Prime Minister David Cameron. Democracy, he said, “involves leadership as well as followship” and it’s perfectly fine for a leader to pursue a course of action that a majority of people may initially oppose, but to try to win people round as they go.

“Democracy,” he said, “is our chance to participate. It’s not just about answering a question.”

Arguing alongside Bogdanor was Nick Yarker, a Conservative councillor on Westminster City Council and a Saatchi ad man. He called research a valuable tool “that helps deliver government for the people”, but he said answering a survey question differs entirely from casting a vote which you know has consequences.

Elections are not perfect, Yarker said, but nor is research. And just as the recent referendum on whether to adopt the Alternative Vote saw arguments over the pros and cons of various voting systems, Yarker made the point that a world in which research was the dominant means of democratic expression would no doubt see similar debates over survey methods, sample selection and sample size.

Any politician who tries to deliver government for the people by constantly asking the people what they should be doing, he said, will not remain in office for long.

The motion – “Research is always going to be more democratic than elections” – was defeated. But let us know whether you agree or not in the comments section below.