
Table of contents
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58248/HS65
Overview
Democracy relies on citizens engaging with politics. Engaging in politics can include voting in elections, running for an elected office, campaigning with interest groups, signing petitions and joining or campaigning for political parties.[i] This is how people voice their concerns, respond to policies and legislation, and assess the behaviour and performance of their elected representatives. Research has found this engagement influences subsequent vote choice.[ii]
People can be motivated to engage with politics, and core political institutions such as parliament, for several reasons such as if they:
- feel that they understand politics and are able participate in it
- feel that political institutions are responsive to their needs and are open for dialogue and their suggestions[iii]
- trust that political institutions and elected politicians operate with honesty, integrity and in the best interests of the public[iv]
An individual can become disengaged from politics for several reasons, such as if they:
- lack confidence in their knowledge and understanding of the political process
- lack confidence in their capacity to influence political outcomes
- lack faith in the norms, rules and conventions governing politics
- believe that the political system and its representatives are organised unfairly, preventing their participation[v]
Challenges and opportunities
The Hansard Society’s Audit of Political Engagement in 2019 found that core indicators of democratic engagement had remained relatively stable since 2004. 61% of those surveyed said they were certain to vote, 53% were interested in politics and 51% said they had good levels of political knowledge. A third of people believed in their ability to influence political outcomes, a figure that has remained relatively stable over the course of the study.[vi]
A more recent 2023 study also found a willingness to participate in democratic processes, and a certain degree of confidence in democratic processes, as demonstrated by those saying they vote in elections (67%), sign petitions (54%) and, to a lesser extent, get in direct mail contact with MPs (27%).[vii]
Data from the British Election Study Internet Panel (BESIP)[viii] indicated that people’s ability to understand politics, their perception that politicians care about what people like them think, and their political attention, have remained relatively stable, with a slight decline over the last decade (see figure 1).[ix]
However, the BESIP data also indicated that almost half of all people pay attention to politics, which is 10 percentage points less than in 2014, and a third do not consider politics difficult to understand – slightly down from 2014.
The 2019 Hansard Society audit also found that while the core democratic indicators have remained relatively stable, “beneath the surface, the strongest feelings of powerlessness and disengagement are intensifying”. For example, it noted that 18% of people surveyed “strongly disagree” that political involvement can change the way the UK is run, and that 47% of people felt they had “no influence at all over national decision-making”.

Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the lack of public engagement with certain routine political activities. For example, research in 2022 showed that, despite their important role in selecting candidates, developing policy proposals, campaigning, and acting as a recruitment pool for British politics (including financially supporting candidates) only 1.5% of the electorate engage with political parties as members or supporters.[i] [ii] This lack of engagement may limit full public political participation.
A related challenge stems from declining levels of political trust, especially in politicians,[iii] and of satisfaction with the political system in the UK and across Western democracies.[iv] The British Election Study Team, commenting on BESIP data, found that the proportion of those saying that they have “no trust” in politicians had increased from 16 percent in 2015 to 35 percent just before the general election in 2024. It noted that this could be “a reflection of dissatisfaction” with the previous government.[v]
The 2019 Audit of Political Engagement noted the lowest levels of satisfaction on record in the system of governing (only 1 in 4 satisfied). It also noted that only 1 in 3 are confident that MPs, the government, and political parties act in the interests of the public.[vi] This broadly agrees with evidence from the BESIP data,[vii] which showed that the percentage of people having little to no trust in MPs increased from 54% in 2014 to 76% in 2024.

This historically low level of trust in politicians is thought to be related to the belief that politicians do not follow ethical standards at the same or higher levels than ordinary citizens,[1] are not penalised for not acting with integrity,[2] or do not tell the truth.[3]
Research evidence also links economic inequality with lower levels of trust. Inequality is thought to erode trust through several mechanisms, including by “depressing citizens’ evaluations of the fairness of the democratic process”.[4]
Inequality in household incomes in the UK has remained at a similar level since the early 1990s, but is higher than during the 1960s and 1970s. The UK has among the highest levels of income inequality in the European Union, although it is slightly lower than in the United States.[5]
While decline in political trust recorded in these surveys seems clear, there are three caveats:
- political trust is ‘relational and target specific’, meaning that expressing a lack of trust in MPs in general does not necessarily mean that one lacks trust in specific MPs, such as those representing their constituencies[6]
- dissatisfaction with individual politicians during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been transferred to the entire cohort of MPs at the time of the survey,[7] meaning that part of the trend is context-specific and may ease in time
- parliament’s efforts to increase the transparency of the institution,[8] to develop clear standards of conduct for parliamentarians,[9] and to create mechanisms for addressing grievances and investigating the conduct of MPs,[10] may help to grow public trust
Key uncertainties/unknowns
Addressing the decline in political trust is a large task for parliament. Previous research shows that institutions and individual politicians can communicate trustworthiness by expressing concerns for individual and society’s needs, by aligning their policy priorities with society’s values, and by demonstrating their expertise, competence, honesty, and credibility.[11]
Importantly, research indicates that trustworthiness can be built through engaging with the public in a meaningful, two-way dialogue. Parliament has established multiple channels for public engagement and communication,[12] including e-petitions[13] and digital and social media tools.[14] It is also conducting work to engage with specific groups of citizens, such with the research community via the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology’s knowledge exchange work.[15] However, there could be scope to improve this dialogue further.[16]
There may also be scope to improve links between parliament and external organisations to maintain and enhance people’s attention to and knowledge of politics and to enable life-long learning of politics and motivation to participate beyond elections.[17] [18] This is linked with parliament’s transparency and digital democracy agenda,[19] which aims to foster political engagement.[20]
Such activities may be developed further by accounting for inequalities associated with lower levels of political participation,[21] including in voting.[22]
Activities to promote engagement will need to account for those who are digitally disengaged or excluded. This group is already more likely to be disadvantaged in society, and a failure to design services with this group in mind could compound existing inequalities.[23] Democratic institutions may need to explore balancing digital and offline activities to improve political engagement and communication between parliament the public without replicating[24] and potentially deepening[25] inequalities in political participation.
Key questions for parliament
- What constitutes effective political engagement for the public and for parliament?
- How can parliament encourage the public to participate in politics between elections?
- What could life-long learning of politics look like?
- How could public attention to, and interest in, politics be maintained?
- How can political trust be understood in the context of parliament?
- How is political trust related to integrity, honesty, competence and expertise?
- How might parliament address the link between economic inequality and trust?
- What practical solutions could be offered to improve the public’s trust in parliament and in politicians?
- How can citizens be more involved in parliamentary decision-making processes?
- How can efforts to improve engagement through digital democracy not leave behind those that are digitally disengaged or excluded?
References
[1] Renwick, A., Lauderdale, B., Russell, M., Cleaver, J. 2023. Public Preferences for Integrity and Accountability in Politics. The Constitution Unit, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research-areas/deliberative-democracy/democracy-uk-after-brexit/public-preferences-integrity-and (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[2] Renwick, A., Lauderdale, B., Russell, M., Cleaver, J. 2023. Public Preferences for Integrity and Accountability in Politics. The Constitution Unit, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research-areas/deliberative-democracy/democracy-uk-after-brexit/public-preferences-integrity-and (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[3] Clemence, M., King, L. 2023. Trust in politicians reaches its lowest score in 40 years. Ipsos MORI Veracity Index, https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-trust-in-professions-veracity-index-2023 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[4] Bienstman, S., Hence, S. & Gangl, M. Explaining the ‘democratic malaise’ in unequal societies: Inequality, external efficacy and political trust. European Journal of Political Research 63: 172–191, 2024, doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12611
[5] House of Commons Library, Income inequality in the UK, 17 April, 2024
[6] Weinberg, J., 2022. Trust, governance, and the Covid‐19 pandemic: An explainer using longitudinal data from the United Kingdom. The Political Quarterly, 93(2), pp.316-325, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13131 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[7] Weinberg, J. (2022). Can Political Trust Help to Explain Elite Policy Support and Public Behaviour in Times of Crisis? Evidence from the United Kingdom at the Height of the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic. Political Studies, 70(3), 655-679, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720980900 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[8] House of Commons. 2015. Open up! The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, https://www.digitaldemocracy.parliament.uk/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[9] Committee on Standards. The House of Commons, https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/ (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[10] The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS). UK Parliament, https://www.parliament.uk/about/independent-complaints-and-grievance-scheme/ (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[11] Weinberg, J. 2022. Can Political Trust Help to Explain Elite Policy Support and Public Behaviour in Times of Crisis? Evidence from the United Kingdom at the Height of the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic. Political Studies, 70(3), 655-67, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720980900 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[12] Leston-Bandeira, C. 2016. Why symbolic representation frames parliamentary public engagement. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(2), 498-516, https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148115615029 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[13] Leston-Bandeira, C. 2019. Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: an empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions. Policy & Politics, 47(3), 415-436, https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420117 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[14] House of Commons. 2015. Open up! The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, https://www.digitaldemocracy.parliament.uk/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[15] UK Parliament, Knowledge Exchange Unit (accessed 2 August 2024)
[16] Habermas, J. 2006. Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), pp.411–426, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[17] UK Parliament. 2024. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Political Literacy, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/240530/political-literacy.htm (accessed on 26 June 2024) and Shout Out. 2024. All-Party Parliamentary Group on Political Literacy, https://www.shoutoutuk.org/appg-on-political-literacy/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[18] James, T.S. 2023. The UK’s Democracy Under Strain: Democratic Backsliding 2019-23. Unlock Democracy, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bd057c434c4e2d8eb0434e6/t/6492f224295cc1115f5bad6f/1687351856614/backsliding_report_digital_v1.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[19] House of Commons. 2015. Open up! The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, https://www.digitaldemocracy.parliament.uk/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[20] Oser, J., Boulianne, S., 2020. Reinforcement effects between digital media use and political participation: A meta-analysis of repeated-wave panel data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(S1), pp.355-365, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa017 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[21] Dalton, R.J., 2017. The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Stride, G. The Impact of Voter ID: The Views of Administrators. Local Government Information Unit, https://lgiu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/The-impact-of-voter-ID-the-views-of-administrators.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[23] Ueno, A., Dennis, C., Dafoulas, G.A. 2023. Digital exclusion and relative digital deprivation: Exploring factors and moderators of internet non-use in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 197, p.122935, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122935 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[24] Theocharis, Y., de Moor, J., van Deth, J.W., 2021. Digitally networked participation and lifestyle politics as new modes of political participation. Policy & internet, 13(1), pp.30-53, https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.231 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[25] Hoffmann, C.P., Lutz, C., 2021. Digital divides in political participation: The mediating role of social media self‐efficacy and privacy concerns. Policy & Internet, 13(1), pp.6-29, https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.225 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[i] Burton, M., Tunnicliffe, R. 2022. Membership of political parties in Great Britain. House of Commons Library Research Briefing, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05125/ (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[ii] Bale, T., Webb, P. and Poletti, M., 2019. Footsoldiers: Political party membership in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
[iii] Jennings, W., Clarke, N., Moss, J., Stoker, G. 2017. The Decline in Diffuse Support for National Politics: The Long View on Political Discontent in Britain. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(3), pp.748–758, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx020 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[iv] Valgarðsson, V. O., Jennings, W., Stoker, G., Bunting, H., Devine, D., McKay, L., & Klassen, A. 2024. A Crisis of Political Trust? Global trends in institutional trust from 1958 to 2019. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/puekh (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[v] Fieldhouse, E., J. Green, G. Evans, J. Mellon, C. Prosser, J. Bailey, Griffiths, J., Perrett, S. 2024. British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-26. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/british-election-study-2024-election-provisional-panel-dataset-long-format/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[vi] Hansard Society. 2019. The Audit of Political Engagement 16. The 2019 Report. London
https://assets.ctfassets.net/rdwvqctnt75b/7iQEHtrkIbLcrUkduGmo9b/cb429a657e97cad61e61853c05c8c4d1/Hansard-Society__Audit-of-Political-Engagement-16__2019-report.pdf?utm_source=HansardSociety (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[vii] Fieldhouse, E., J. Green, G. Evans, J. Mellon, C. Prosser, J. Bailey, Griffiths, J., Perrett, S. 2024. British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-26. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/british-election-study-2024-election-provisional-panel-dataset-long-format/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[i] Hooghe, M., Hosch-Dayican, B., van Deth, J. 2014. Conceptualizing political participation. Acta Politica, 49, pp. 337–348, https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.7 (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[ii] Healy, A., Malhotra, N., 2013. Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual review of political science, 16, pp.285-306, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[iii] Prats, M. and A. Meunier (2021), “Political efficacy and participation: An empirical analysis in European countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 46, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4548cad8-en (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[iv] Hooghe, M., Marien, S., 2013. A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies, 15(1), pp.131-152, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2012.692807 (accessed on 27 June 2024).
[v] Fox, S. 2015. Apathy, alienation and young people: the political engagement of British millennials. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/30532 (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[vi] Hansard Society. 2019. The Audit of Political Engagement 16. The 2019 Report. London
https://assets.ctfassets.net/rdwvqctnt75b/7iQEHtrkIbLcrUkduGmo9b/cb429a657e97cad61e61853c05c8c4d1/Hansard-Society__Audit-of-Political-Engagement-16__2019-report.pdf?utm_source=HansardSociety (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[vii] Renwick, A., Lauderdale, B., Russell, M., Cleaver, J. 2023. Public Preferences for Integrity and Accountability in Politics. The Constitution Unit. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research-areas/deliberative-democracy/democracy-uk-after-brexit/public-preferences-integrity-and (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[viii] Fieldhouse, E., J. Green, G. Evans, J. Mellon, C. Prosser, J. Bailey, Griffiths, J., Perrett, S. 2024. British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-26. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/british-election-study-2024-election-provisional-panel-dataset-long-format/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[ix] Fieldhouse, E., J. Green, G. Evans, J. Mellon, C. Prosser, J. Bailey, Griffiths, J., Perrett, S. 2024. British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-26. https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/british-election-study-2024-election-provisional-panel-dataset-long-format/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
Photo by: Jessica Taylor via UK Parliament
