2025

Author: Pravar Petkar, Head of Strengthening Democracy Desk Who do politicians work for? Modern democracy relies on decision-makers being accountable to the people they govern. Yet political parties seem increasingly in thrall to those with deep pockets, ranging from well-heeled private donors to the titanic influence of Elon Musk on Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. The risk to British democracy has been laid bare by rumours that Musk was planning a $100 million donation to Reform UK. In this climate, the UK must urgently introduce a monetary cap on donations to political parties and needs more extensive public education for citizens on political party funding.  The holes in the current framework  The UK’s regulatory framework for donations to political parties is relatively relaxed. There is no formal cap on how much any donor can donate to a political party. Donations under £500 need not be reported, whilst those over £11,180 must be by law, a threshold increased from £7,500 in early 2024. The transparency of one’s financial transactions is the only real limit in play. Transparency is also having to do more work than ever before: the outgoing Conservative Government increased the general election campaign expenditure limit for each party from £30,000 to £54,010 per constituency, alongside other limits relating to candidates’ expenses. If parties and candidates can spend more, fundraising efforts – and larger and larger donations – will only increase. As Tom Brake has recently pointed out, this situation is exacerbated by donations made by unincorporated associations. These bodies range from golf clubs to dining societies and need not report their finances in the way charities or companies do.  In comparison to the UK’s European neighbours, state funding for political parties is minimal, producing a reliance on private donations. Following the 2024 General Election, just under £7 million was distributed to opposition parties in the House of Commons in ‘short money’ to support parliamentary business, travel costs and the Leader of the Opposition’s office. An additional £1.9 million was disbursed in policy development grants across all political parties in the 2023-24 financial year. In Germany, by contrast, the cap on state funding of political parties in 2024 was €219 million, with private donations a much smaller financial source.  Despite this, the UK is better-off than some other major democracies around the world. For the last 15 years, since the famous Citizens United decision, corporations in the USA have been able to spend unlimited amounts on elections, since any restrictions are considered by the US Supreme Court to violate free speech rights. Meanwhile, India’s Supreme Court declared in February 2024 that it was unconstitutional for political parties to receive donations through anonymous promissory notes termed ‘Electoral Bonds’.  Whilst this protects voters’ rights to information in form, it may also increase the number of unreported cash donations to parties, thus making Indian democracy more opaque.  Why Musk’s donations are a new kind of threat  In this landscape, Musk’s donations – as well as those of any other social media giants – raise a new kind of threat for democracy. All political parties need some form of funding, whether from private donors or the state, to finance their campaigns and provide a space for those with similar political views to assemble and exchange ideas. Yet major private donors can also leverage their financial hold over parties to secure their desired political outcomes, or simply turn a profit.   Musk poses not only this threat, but one that strikes at the heart of any democracy Increasingly, social media platforms such as X not only aspire to be the public sphere, but are it. Research by Ofcom in 2023 shows that 47% of UK adults use social media for news, rising to 71% of 16–24-year-olds. Those like Musk and Mark Zuckerberg who own and control social media platforms have almost unrestricted power to control what ideas can be exchanged in these public spaces, with no accountability to their users or to government. When this power is turned towards the interests of one political party, democracy is eroded from within, because electoral politics is no longer a level playing field. Musk’s role in government following Trump’s re-election should raise alarm bells here, as should his recent appearance at an Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) rally ahead of the German federal elections in February. Because of this, policymakers cannot treat the owners of social media companies as they would any other private donor: more extensive restrictions and transparency requirements are needed because such donations open up multiple paths to influencing elections.   A cap on donations is needed  Discussion about a cap on donations to political parties has intensified in recent weeks in the UK. In an Opinium poll carried out for pressure group Unlock Democracy, two-thirds of the 2,000-odd respondents across parties supported some limits on donations. The Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, raised a question in Parliament on the matter on 8 January 2025, reiterating a position from his party’s 2024 spring conference. Most recently, Liberal Democrat MP Manuela Perteghella introduced a Bill into the House of Commons on 12 February 2025 to impose a fair cap on donations and outlaw foreign donations. Since Musk might use a British subsidiary of X to make a donation, a cap is the most straightforward option for tackling the challenge he poses: it will ensure that nobody – Musk or otherwise – could donate $100m to one party in one go.  Where that cap is set is another matter entirely. Recent commentary for The Constitution Society argues that there is no ‘silver bullet’ for reforming party funding: any cap on donations would “significantly reduce party income and expenditure”, to the detriment of parties’ ability to engage the electorate and hold governments to account. Although political parties today are often viewed as tribal fronts, rather like rival football teams, a political world made up solely of independent politicians would lack the infrastructure to regularly bring elected politicians at all levels and the public together to campaign around

Author: Chloe Schuber, Research & Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk Traditional democratic systems, such as those in the US, UK, and India, often marginalise youth voices due to a complex interplay of cultural factors. Older demographics tend to dominate policymaking and shape the issues that receive the most attention in elections.  Traditional political structures are often slow to adapt to the evolving needs and perspectives of newer generations, therefore, young people frequently feel disenfranchised and disconnected. Limited access to and influence over mainstream political channels further reinforces this sense of exclusion. Over the past decade however, digital platforms have reshaped youth engagement with politics, from self-education to empowering them towards action. This has facilitated the creation of online communities and movements which allow young people’s voices to be heard at an unprecedented scale. Tangible policy changes are a key objective in these movements whose online activism translates into real-world impact. This exponential increase in youth engagement raises the question:   Can digital engagement empower youth to overcome these barriers and drive meaningful policy-level impact?  Firstly, it is clear young people are using and engaging in digital activism increasingly. Digital tools are empowering youth mobilisation. The #NeverAgain movement exemplifies this. Following the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSD) shooting in Parkland, Florida, twenty students united to create a survivor-led movement. This group toured the US, encouraging young people to vote in the 2018 mid-term elections, demanding legislative action on gun control, specifically targeting the National Rifle Association (NRA). The March for Our Lives, organised by Never Again MSD, saw thousands protesting across the United States and internationally. Social media was instrumental in disseminating information and raising awareness; #MarchForOurLives was used 3.6 million times, and over seven thousand tweets targeted the NRA’s social media account. Individuals were mobilised through these events, both in person and on platforms like Twitter and Instagram. The MSD Public Safety Act, passed in Florida in March 2018, included increased funding for school security and raising the minimum age for gun purchase from 18 to 21. The raw emotion conveyed by the survivors through social media generated widespread awareness, leading to increased gun regulation in Florida, despite the NRA’s strong lobbying presence and ties to the Republican majority in the state legislature. Youth-led digital activism translated online momentum into state-level legislative change.  Secondly, it is important to understand the challenges in youth representation and how to empower this demographic towards meaningful change. These challenges are primarily cultural, as educational attainment and experience are typically seen as prerequisites for political influence, serving as indicators of credibility, competence, and leadership skills. Young people often feel excluded from politics due to a lack of representation and the limited attention  that major political parties pay to this demographic. Apathy must be addressed. In the UK, for example, youth-led organisations are demonstrating that change is possible. My Life My Say (MLMS) aims to empower young people from underrepresented communities to participate in UK decision-making processes. Since 2013, they have reached over six million young people through various innovative initiatives designed to bridge this gap. Their initiatives include Democracy Cafes, with over 700 sessions reaching over 40,000 people, providing forums for discussion on local issues. They also host the Next Gen Youth Summit, bringing together leaders, activists, and academics to engage on key subjects; organised mass mobilisation for National Voter Registration Day, registering just under half a million people; and founded the Give an X campaign to encourage young people to become more informed and politically active, starting with voting.   Thirdly, policy change through activism is occurring globally, not just in Western countries. Digital platforms are transforming youth activism, enabling young people to address systemic issues such as discrimination or inequality and demand accountability. While India has a younger population than Western countries, governance remains led by older generations due to deeply rooted political and societal structures. The nationwide protests following the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape in India highlight how digital tools drove meaningful reforms led by youth. The rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman, later named Nirbhaya (‘fearless’), in Delhi sparked widespread outrage. Social media platforms not only amplified survivor stories but also became crucial tools for organising protests and pressuring policymakers. This case, one of many highlighting gender violence and systemic neglect, resonated nationally. The widespread protests led to government commitments to improve women’s safety in India. Across states, measures such as 24/7 helplines, stricter penalties for sexual crimes, the criminalisation of stalking and voyeurism under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, and the establishment of Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) to expedite sexual offence trials were introduced. Under the Nirbhaya Fund, hundreds of CCTV cameras were installed across Delhi, and panic buttons were installed on buses to alert emergency services. This case was a landmark example of online mobilisation leading to legal, infrastructural, and cultural changes. Digital activism can amplify individual cases, transforming them into resonant national messages, empowering victims of systemic injustice or endangerment. Digital tools can trigger significant shifts in mentalities and values.  Finally, this empowering and meaningful engagement cannot occur without prior preparation and education for young people. Policy makers are crucial in equipping them with the necessary tools and systems to communicate their needs and demands for change. Across democracies, both top-down opportunities, such as formal platforms for youth voices to be heard, and bottom-up readiness, starting with education are necessary to further this engagement. Platforms to develop digital literacy coupled with civic skills would allow young people to maximise the impact and make their needs heard through activism. Digital activism allows for more organised and impactful action, consolidating the common and key demands of specific groups. The UK Youth Parliament exemplifies a digital platform providing youth representation. Over a million votes were cast in its 2018 elections, representing a 20% turnout of the 11-18 year old population. While insufficient to fully represent all young people, and catering to those aged 11 to 18, it nonetheless demonstrates innovative initiatives to empower future generations