This article was first published in the RPRN’s Red Lines

Now that I’ve got your attention, let me qualify it slightly: elections are not democratic in and of themselves. What should seem obvious to anyone who cares about politics or history has been almost entirely obscured in today’s public discourse. Politics (or what passes as politics) lives almost entirely by the rhythm of elections and opinion polls.

In this short piece, I want to challenge some of these common assumptions. Many more could be added (such as whether elections are democratic at all), but the following are particularly pressing:

1. Elections ≠ democracy

It should go without saying that elections without a people who has the time and space to engage with politics, a healthy democratic media ecosystem and a wide array of choices regarding potential futures do not make for a democracy in any meaningful sense.

Democracy means being involved in decision-making through a healthy public debate. Whether this is through the conscious and conscientious election of representatives, more direct forms of participation or a lottery is to be discussed, but debate should be the very base line.

This is something we are very far off these days, with political participation beyond voting being actively discouraged, vilified or criminalised. Think for example of the way protests and strikes are covered and repressed by force or threat, or how alternatives to the status quo on the left are mocked by “sensible” punditry. Think of the indistinguishable centre-left and -right alternatives which have been given to us as the “reasonable choice” through the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, as neoliberalism destroyed any democratic progress made through the radical movements that preceded it. Think of how, when the crisis of the liberal hegemony became full blown, the alternative constructed by the liberal elite to stay in power was the far right: vote for us or you get fascism. Think of who owns the media and who therefore shapes our world, something I turn to next. What should be clear is that really existing liberalism was never a bulwark against fascism; it is clear now it has been an enabler.

These are not radical claims and the fact they may be controversial says a lot about the state of our public discourse and its subservience to oligarchic power. In our circumstances, it should be obvious that voting does not equate to democracy. To paraphrase Rancière, this does not mean we live in a dictatorship either, but there are many other more-or-less undemocratic systems in between. This should be enough to make us think.

As many rightly celebrate Viktor Orbán’s defeat in Hungary, it will only become truly meaningful if Péter Magyar’s Tisza not only reverts the authoritarian slide but opens up the democratic arena in a far more radical fashion than most of its European counterparts, something which seems unlikely based on Magyar’s past and parts of his programme. Celebrating the far right’s defeat is not a victory for democracy, it is simply the potential start of a long road towards it.

2. Who sets the agenda?

Now, some will say that we still have the choice to vote for whoever we want – this is not Orbán’s Hungary after all! In countries like the UK or France, no one prevents us from creating our own parties and alternatives (that is, if you formally belong as citizens). No one stops us from starting our own media either. Why don’t I pull up my sleeves and get to work in the marketplace of ideas? If my ideas don’t sell, it could be there is just no market for them (shrug emoji).

Again, a quick glance at the current state of play (let alone a thorough engagement with the research on the matter) should make clear that the ‘marketplace of idea’ is as free and meritocratic as any market created under capitalism and neoliberalism in particular: the more powerful you are, the louder your voice. So yes, some independent news outlets are doing a tremendous job, but they are fighting on a deeply uneven playing field.

Acknowledging that some public actors are better placed to set and shape the agenda is therefore an obvious starting point. And this does not have to be done through obviously authoritarian means, but with the liberal mainstream’s consent. Whether it is through the ability of the few to buy the space and attention of the public or take part in networks of power through lobbying and connections based on birth, wealth or both, our current media ecosystem is far from democratic.

If we do not acknowledge that the world of voters (or anyone else for that matter) is mediated by the information we have access to, and that said information is managed, if not controlled, by elite actors, then we miss a crucial part of what leads to electoral results. This is not a conspiracy theory either, it is an unavoidable necessity in any society larger than a hamlet cut off from the world. If any of us is to understand the wider world around us and make decisions about it, we need such mediated knowledge. This can take many shapes and forms, and originate from countless places; from families to workplaces and religious institutions. The media in all its varied forms plays a crucial role for obvious reasons. As agenda setting theory sets out: the media does not tell us what to think, but it certainly helps us shape what to think about. This can be positive if it makes us think about issues that pertain to the greater good, but it can be incredibly damaging if it diverts attention onto scapegoats (migrants, asylum seekers, racialised minorities, women, trans people, disabled people) or limits the possibilities of thinking through different futures.

For the sake of this short piece, let’s put it succinctly: without a healthy media ecosystem which values democracy in its most emancipatory sense, elections are not fair in the most basic sense. Whether they can ever be fully democratic is a matter of contention, but for now, suffice to say that our current setting does get even close to it.

3. Turnout matters

Now that I have touched on some of the issues which make elections far from obviously democratic before they have even happened, let me turn to the way we generally look at electoral results.

When an election takes place, the coverage generally focuses on the percentage of the vote gained by candidates or parties. This means that it only considers those who have voted (in fact, it also often ignores those who voted but chose to spoil their ballot or leave a blank vote). This is fair to an extent; those who vote get to decide, based on the rules of the game as created. Having said that, it is worth considering what would happen if all those who voted spoiled their ballot (which is the basis of Seeing, José Saramago’s brilliant novel).

So, while these are the rules of the game, for good or bad, nothing would prevent the pollsters helping us make sense of electoral results; including the wider context, particularly when it says a lot about the state of our democracies.

Think for example of Donald Trump’s first victory in the 2016. The system in which he won is already well known for being problematic and handing over victories to candidates who did not receive a majority of the vote. In fact, in 2016, Trump received almost 3 million fewer votes than deeply unpopular Hillary Clinton. Worse still, he was elected by around 25% of the registered vote, meaning that only one out of four Americans who are allowed to vote chose him as their president (so much for a strong mandate). And this doesn’t even account for those who cannot vote because of stringent (racist) laws targeting communities more likely to vote Democrat.

Another example is the 2014 European elections which saw the far right ‘triumph’ and marked the start of the hype around Marine Le Pen in France and Ukip in the UK, which marked a turning point in the mainstreaming of far-right politics. This led in part to David Cameron promising a referendum on the EU, should he be re-elected the following year. At the time, Ukip was the only party demanding an exit from the EU. Sure, Ukip won the EU elections with 26% of the vote, but crucially, this is generally termed ‘second order elections’ which generate little interest, low turnout and a high protest vote. Unsurprisingly, when turnout is taken into account, Ukip received less than 10% of the vote, meaning that less than one out of ten voters in the UK have ended up shaping the national agenda ever since.

This may sound like excuses, downplaying the threat of the far right, but think of the impact of the following headlines, both being accurate:

‘Ukip wins EU elections with 26.6% of the vote’

‘Ukip wins EU elections with 9.5% of the registered vote’

Think now how one out of ten voters have been allowed to shape the agenda ever since. Now, let’s consider who these voters are, or who they are portrayed to be.

4. ‘The working class’ vs the working class

Much has been said about the so-called ‘left behind’ or ‘white working class’ turning to the far right. This ignores that the lower you are on the socio-economic scale, the more likely you are to abstain. For example, when Marine Le Pen claimed to have become the ‘party of the working class’ in 2014, where she received almost a third of the working-class vote, what she conveniently ignored is that up to two-thirds of the working class tends to abstain in these elections. This means that she may have got most of the vote of the working class that votes, but that made up less than 10% of the whole working class vote out there.

Again, think of the impact of the following headlines, both being accurate:

‘A third of the workers vote for the Rassemblement National’

‘One out of ten workers vote for the Rassemblement National, two thirds abstain’

And this is even before we start thinking about how we define who is working class. More often than not, when the working class is discussed with regards to elections, it is either with flawed metrics which can easily merge or mix up the lower middle class and the working class proper: the former being prime candidates for the far right historically. Besides, it should not be a surprise that many wealthy people vote for the far right as they are best placed to benefit from their politics and share their deeply elitist and reactionary view of the world.

Working-class support for the far right also tends to be couched in deeply caricatural understandings of working class as solely representing an old white man with a regional accent and no university degree and with a particular regional accent. For example, take the people behind the ‘raise the colours’ flag protests who are businessmen despite claiming to be ordinary working class people, with one allegedly owning a £600,000 house. This should not be surprising; these racist stunts cost a lot of money and time, neither of which the increasingly impoverished and overworked working class has. Furthermore, thinking that the racism of the working class would take priority over other issues is not lacking in evidence, but incredibly patronising and wilfully ignores the many ‘educated’ wealthy who have long-embraced the far right and its bigotry.

These narratives also ignore that the nature of the working class has changed dramatically and that a manual worker who might have been working class at the start of their career forty years ago might now be a small business owner, own a house (and maybe another or two to rent), have a good pension fund etc. Meanwhile, this caricature ignores the millions of young and ‘educated’ city-dwellers in precarious employment as well as the diversity of the working class compared to other classes. This should not surprise us as those who often are used as representative of the working class instead either share the interests of the ruling class (small entrepreneurs etc) or are used to divert attention away from actual class issues onto scapegoats. Either way, they are closer to the historical fascist voter than ‘the people’ which was core to all the progressive struggles which have helped democratise our societies.

It is therefore no surprise that a YouGov poll early 2026 showed that while older voters across the board tended to favour the right and far right and few the radical left, younger voters across all socio-economic categories favoured the Greens, with those in routine employment being most in favour (36%!). All of this as the Greens receive little attention by comparison, with much of the mainstream elite not only focusing on Reform but mimicking its discourse.

It is striking today that in much of our public discourse, when we hear about class and elections and ‘the people’, communities such as ethnic minorities, migrants, women, the young, trans people, those really at the sharp end of neoliberal politics, are often excluded. At times, they can even be painted as part of the ‘new elite’ by bad faith reactionaries in cahoots with billionaires and their mainstream enablers. It is these narratives we must tirelessly refuse to internalise and continue to push against as who gets to be the people matters and our claims are far more convincing.

5. For the people rather than by the people

So where does all this leave us?

I don’t want to end on too dark a note. Our democracies are only really so in name only, but this is not how it has to be. What we have now is a sham of democracy where leaders tell us they govern ‘for the people’ and that they should be trusted to do so – anything beyond is considered ‘populism’ and therefore unacceptable. What is clear is that their mandates are actually at best extremely weak, with most who still vote doing so against the worst evil rather than for something they want. We also see how popular radical alternatives on the left can be, despite being widely ignored or maligned by those most able to set the agenda.

We need to think of democracy beyond elections. We need not give up on voting, but we cannot think voting is our way out. Democracy must be seen as a wider ecosystem which may or may not require elections, but absolutely requires accountability, transparency and a democratic media ecosystem accessible to all. What we need is democracy by the people, not simply for the people. At the moment, none of our major parties are willing to even seriously considering offering any of these very basic democratic safeguards. Therefore, while defeating the far right should remain at the top of the agenda, it can only be done if we are to vote for a more democratic future rather than for lesser evilism.

***

Thanks to Miranda Iossifidis and Alex Charnley for their feedback on the article.