Court of Public Opinion vs Autonomy of Elected Officials: Has Western Politics Gone to the Dogs?

There is a growing sense that the foundational pillars of Western democracy—particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States—are showing signs not merely of strain, but of profound structural dislocation.

In a climate increasingly governed by the fleeting tempests of popular sentiment, one must ask: has Western politics truly gone to the dogs?

At the heart of this question lies a volatile tension between the autonomy of elected officials and the ever-encroaching power of the so-called court of public opinion.

In theory, representative democracy rests on the principle that voters entrust officials with the authority to deliberate, consult, and make informed decisions on their behalf.

However, in practice, this model is being eroded by the rise of instant, emotionally driven public reactions—often shaped and amplified by social media algorithms and 24-hour news cycles (Sunstein, 2017).

The Tyranny of Sentiment

The problem is not public opinion per se, which is foundational to democracy. Rather, it is the new architecture of how opinion is formed, manipulated, and responded to.

Public discourse in the digital age is fragmented, hyper-personalised, and algorithmically curated (McIntyre, 2018).

As a result, officials in both Whitehall and Washington increasingly find themselves in reactive postures, legislating not with an eye to long-term national interest, but with one fixed nervously on the Twitter feed or the next polling snapshot.

The “popularity paradox” is now a defining feature of Anglo-American politics. Leaders are expected to be visionary yet instantly responsive, decisive yet perpetually consultative.

This breeds a form of governance that is at once weak and erratic. It privileges performative gestures over substantive policy reform and leaves little room for unpopular but necessary decisions (Fukuyama, 2014).

Democratic Deficit or Surplus of Democracy?

Some would argue that we are not experiencing a democratic deficit, but rather an overabundance of shallow democracy (Mounk, 2018). Democratic mechanisms are still in place: elections are held, MPs and Congressmen are still answerable to their constituents.

But when long-term policy planning is held hostage by the short-term whims of public emotion, one must question what kind of democracy we are actually practising.

The Brexit referendum and its protracted aftermath in the UK exemplify this dilemma. A complex and multi-dimensional issue was flattened into a binary choice, decided by a narrow margin and exploited by populists who weaponised grievance over governance (Curtice, 2019).

What followed was not a triumph of democratic expression, but a paralysis of the political class—trapped between fulfilling a promise made to “the people” and the technocratic reality of managing a global economy (OECD, 2020).

In the United States, the Trump phenomenon mirrored this collapse of coherent policy making. Policy pronouncements came via tweets, with little regard for process, expertise, or institutional memory (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018).

More worryingly, traditional checks and balances, including a supposedly independent judiciary and a professional civil service, were undermined by the populist rhetoric of “draining the swamp”.

The Death of Expertise?

This brings us to another casualty of this political degeneration: the diminished role of statistical and research institutions in shaping public policy. Once viewed as bastions of impartial truth, these bodies are now often accused of elitism or ideological bias.

In an age where “alternative facts” can gain as much traction as peer-reviewed data, evidence-based policymaking is no longer sacrosanct (Nichols, 2017).

Take climate policy. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, decisions continue to be shaped more by culture wars and electoral calculations than by data or environmental urgency (IPCC, 2021).

In the UK, the government’s wavering commitment to net-zero targets reflects this dangerous balancing act between science and sentiment (CCC, 2023).

Or consider public health. The COVID-19 pandemic initially prompted a resurgence of respect for epidemiologists and statisticians. But this proved short-lived.

As lockdown fatigue set in, governments in both the UK and US caved under pressure, often abandoning expert advice in favour of policies that appeased vocal segments of the public.

The consequence was policy incoherence, mixed messaging, and, tragically, avoidable deaths (BMJ, 2021).

Conclusion: Between Populism and Paralysis

So, has Western politics gone to the dogs? Perhaps not entirely—but the kennel door is certainly swinging open. What we are witnessing is not the death of democracy, but its mutation into a performative, emotionally reactive spectacle, where popularity trumps principle, and optics override outcomes.

If democracy is to survive this crisis of legitimacy and coherence, elected officials must reclaim the moral courage to lead—not just follow.

That means insulating critical policymaking from the short-termism of media cycles, reaffirming the role of expert institutions, and re-educating the public about the difference between what feels good and what actually works.

In both the UK and the US, the challenge is not to suppress public opinion, but to elevate political discourse.

It is only when officials are able to govern with informed autonomy, backed by robust institutions and a citizenry capable of delayed gratification, that we can begin to restore the integrity of Western political systems.

Otherwise, we may find ourselves led not by elected officials, but by a cacophonous algorithmic chorus—a modern-day mob, dressed in the clothes of democracy, but devoid of its discipline.

References:

BMJ (2021). COVID-19 and political decision-making in the UK and US: lessons from a crisis. British Medical Journal, Vol. 375.

CCC (2023). Progress Report to Parliament. Climate Change Committee, UK.

Curtice, J. (2019). Brexit: Behind the Referendum. NatCen Social Research.

Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay. Profile Books.

IPCC (2021). Sixth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing.

McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-Truth. MIT Press.

Mounk, Y. (2018). The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Harvard University Press.

Nichols, T. (2017). The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. Oxford University Press.

OECD (2020). The Future of Democracy and Governance in the Age of Digital Disruption. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Sunstein, C.R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.

Dr Sibangilizwe Moyo writes on Church and Governance, politics, legal and social issues. He can be reached at [email protected]