By On June 23, Sir Keir Starmer resigned as prime minister after two years in office. His leadership was challenged within his party, and the multiple by-elections and English council and Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections showed that the public was also very unhappy with him and his party.
His rival for the position, Andy Burnham, was named Labor leader shortly after, an outcome Starmer had been desperate to stop from happening.
This means that the UK is on track to induct its seventh Prime Minister in 10 years.
Instability in the UK has become a norm, resulting in the revolving-door leadership that many expect will continue without comprehensive reforms to elections and government alike. Many voters expressed that they see the end of democracy in such crises, but the situation may not be so simplistic.
Democracy’s Instability is Natural
Before burying democracy, one should examine that it is a fundamentally unstable system. However, that instability does not mean it collapses easily, only that it effectively has a cycle of crisis and stability in government.
Adam Przeworski wrote all the way back in 1991 that “Democracy is a system in which parties lose elections.” So as long as open contestation remains, democracy is sound, even if unstable. Arend Lijphart (1999) and Juan J. Linz (1978) also acknowledged this aspect of democracy in their scholarly writing much earlier.
So why do voters feel democracy is falling apart around them? The world has rapidly changed since these political scientists argued this point, and though the changes since then do not negate what they said, instability has grown greatly due to modern technology.
Politicians are under constant watch now, meaning that the smallest arguments are presently front-page news. Add the sensationalist effect of modern media struggling to keep itself afloat financially while remaining independent, and you have an environment where average voters will believe the government to be in constant crisis. However, this is only in addition to the underlying major issue of instability.
These governments failed not due to the overexaggeration of their minor mistakes, but because of their inadequacy. They signaled government crises, not crises in democratic regimes. This pattern can be observed across multiple countries that experienced frequent leadership changes.
A Global Phenomenon
Revolving-door leadership has occurred across democracies, with each coming out with more stable forms of government. Examining two enduring and recent examples, one can recognize some trends that transcend electoral systems and cultures.
Italy Before Meloni
Italy’s political turmoil seemed a constant state of its government, making the country the go-to example when it came to revolving-door leadership examples. However, even here, Prime Minister Georgia Meloni’s four-year tenure has outlasted four UK prime ministers.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni meets Janapese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Tokyo at the Japan-Italy summit, January 2026. Photo source: 内閣広報室 / Cabinet Public Affairs Office (Japan) / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0
From its post-war years until Meloni’s 2022 election, governments lasted a year at best. The constitution specifically created an environment where consensus-oriented systems created a politically fragmented parliament to avoid another authoritarian regime, prompting what Italian scholar Alessandro Chiaramonte called an “obsession” with electoral reforms.
Despite Meloni’s government also tweaking the electoral system, the coalition’s success cannot be simply measured by electoral changes, as Marco Improta wrote in his 2026 paper.
Under Meloni a coalition emerged that was just big enough to reach enough parliamentary seats for a majority government; this meant that if a coalition partner defected, they lost ministerial office benefits and privileges, making this coalition a bit more durable than its predecessors.
Additionally, this government formed prior to elections, meaning they agreed and presented a united manifesto that was less likely to break its promises since there was no need for concessions to appease coalition partners. Their relative alignment ideologically also served consistency in policies.
Meloni’s coalition has continued to dominate the right, with no convincing alternative to challenge them; however, this environment also forces Meloni to play it safe, reigning in her neo-fascist roots to cater to those voters who support her for stability and pragmatism rather than ideology. In this regard, Meloni has the tacit consent of many voters that see no alternative.
Meloni’s example shows that both voters and politicians will cater to pressure and compromise for stability.
While political and social fragmentation continue to be present, Meloni’s coalition government offered a way to maintain power and further Italian prosperity, if only for her tenure.
Australia 2010-2018
Australia changed its leaders five times between 2010 and 2018 before locking in under the Liberal-led coalition under Scott Morrison. During the unstable years, Canberra became known as the “coup capital of the democratic world.”
Only one of the five leadership changes was due to general elections; the others were caused by leadership spills in the Labour and Liberal Coalition blocks.
Kevin Rudd led the Labour Party to victory in 2007, though his popularity within the party was not as great as it was with voters, with one anonymous Labour figure saying, “This crypto-fascist [Rudd] made no effort to build a base in the party.” Julia Gillard took over but was constantly sabotaged by Rudd, forcing Labour to rely on small parties to counter the Coalition. It was these parties that forced concessions on Gillard that ended her leadership, with Rudd returning as party leader as Labour feared being buried in the Liberal landslide victory. The infighting, however, meant Labour lost the people’s trust, and the next general election in 2013 was won by the Coalition, though by a small margin.
Julia Gillard, the first female Australian Prime Minister, and Department of Immigration and Citizenship Secretary Mr. Andrew Metcalfe hand out Citizenship Certificates to new Australian Citizens, 2011. Photo source: Australia Day Citizenship Ceremony 2011 / DIAC images / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0.
Tony Abbott took the premiership promising no surprises, then proceeded to deregulate university fees and introduced a $7 ‘co-payment’ to see the GP in his first budget for 2014. In 2015, his party was ready to vote him out despite there being no direct challenger.
Malcolm Turnbull took over in 2015 and struggled with infighting in the Coalition, having to concede on many promises for short-term support, which eventually led to being branded as too Labour-like for his party. In the 2016 election, his party just barely held on to power. With many plotting against him, he called a leadership contest in 2018, which he lost to Scott Morrison, who lost an election to Anthony Albanese in 2022.
Analysts only outline the issue of the Liberals being out of touch during Morrisson’s premiership. Yet, throughout these changing leaderships, there was a constant disconnect between a politician’s standing within their party and that with voters.
Generally, one can say that parties struggled to elect a leader who was suitable for both party and country leadership roles.
This resulted in constant infighting, leading to unstable coalitions that made weak governments. Australia’s example shows how democracy forces politicians to reconnect with voters but also forces parties to choose their leaders not only for election wins but also for enduring effective governance.
Is the UK’s Democracy Failing?
While the UK’s democracy may need tweaks, the main issue is which politicians rise to the top and how society is shaped by such instability.
There can be two general reasons observed for the rapid change of governments and leaders in a Western democracy: either society is so fragmented that no one faction – coalition or otherwise – can lead the others, like it was in Italy for many years; or there is a lack of convincing politicians to lead a potential winning faction, leaving voters/parties to choose the best-scenario out of a bad batch instead of actively electing a government they actually want, as it happened in Australia.
Whether Andy Burnham is the best scenario in a bad batch of Labour leaders will be seen once he has established himself in Number 10 and starts working. For now, we only have pledges, which mean little in such a volatile political scene.
However, the fact that Labour MPs elected him to be party leader in a landslide so overwhelming that no other nominees were able to enter the race shows he might be the answer to the infighting that has plagued Labour since it returned to government in 2024.
As the numerous by-elections and recent devolved parliamentary elections both showed, Labour’s most immediate rival, the Conservatives, are in a very low position, having been responsible for the resignation of all other PMs since 2016. Keir Starmer may have become the shortest-serving post-war Labour PM, but he is nowhere near Conservative numbers, with Liz Truss’s 50 days and Rishi Sunak’s one year and 255 days.
First Minister John Swinney met with the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham and the Mayor of Liverpool, Steve Rotheram at St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh. Photo source: Scottish Government / Flickr, CC BY 2.0
Smaller parties may be on the rise, but they are far from being able to secure a governing majority, meaning they would be a riskier choice in a general election than just keeping Labour on. Many issues, like those involving the economy, can only be solved with time, which post-Brexit-vote governments did not have, providing an opportunity for Burnham should he manage to keep his office. There is also an argument to be made that the general public are getting tired of changing leaders and will be more likely to support someone in the long term if they are able to maintain their leadership.
A Chance for the Party and Its Leader
Burnham will have to reconnect Labour with voters’ concerns, tackle the faultline issue of immigration, and provide immediate relief for the most immediate voter concerns, like housing and cost of living, if he hopes to have a good shot at remaining PM for longer. Acknowledging the leadership crisis as a social trend and not entirely a systemic political crisis will help his chances greatly.
It is certain based on previous examples that stable governance means better execution of pledges; so despite sensationalism and general dissatisfaction with the state of democracy, it is the interest and hope of the British public that an effective Prime Minister emerges and remains for a full term.
The moment is right, and if Burnham plays it right, he might become the one to fulfill these wishes.
