Unrepresentative parties, religious lords, corrupt banks... so this is democracy?

The word “democracy” is in persistent use as if it had some fixed and unquestioned meaning, instead of being a flexible word (like “nationalism”) which allows people to defend their prejudices behind a façade of false objectivity.

It was not until the resistance of parliament was finally overcome in the 1880s that the franchise was extended to include most of the male population of the country, while women, who make up the other half of the population, had to wait until the 1920s.

My own generation was required to do National Service at 18, which might have involved being killed during military action, and yet we were not allowed to vote until we were 21.

Now that most of us have the vote, we can vote for one or other of a few political parties whose whips are employed to suppress the opinions of individual members. Despite the fact that these organisations have a combined total membership of about 3 per cent of the electorate, they dominate all political life and government.

Membership of the unelected House of Lords automatically includes bishops of the Church of England, the established church of only one part of the United Kingdom.

When we consider other matters of significance, we find that the supply of money is controlled by banks that exist primarily for the benefit of their shareholders. The financial industry also has a large component dedicated to tax evasion and money laundering, many of which activities escape being classed as criminal only because of the inadequate framing and application of the law.

Which of these circumstances characterises democracy?

PETER M DRYBURGH Falcon Avenue, Edinburgh