King's College London

Just 6% of Gen Z in the UK say they’d like the country to be ruled by a dictator, according to a new in-depth study which counters recent claims that over half of Gen Z would prefer to live under a dictatorship.

A recent poll suggested 52% of 13- to 27-year-olds agree that “the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections.”

This was widely covered in the media, with headlines suggesting it shows that “More than half of Gen Z believe Britain should be ruled by a dictator with no elections”.

But a new study by the Policy Institute at King’s College London suggests this is not a true reflection of Gen Z opinion, and a more accurate figure is that just 6% of 13- to 27-year-olds actually agree the UK would be a better place with a dictator who does not face control from MPs in Parliament and does not have to hold elections.

The study of 2,032 13- to 27-year-olds, conducted with Focaldata, tested the impact of different versions of the question and its interpretation by respondents.

‘Strong leaders’ versus ‘dictators’

The statement used in the original poll has two parts to it, where the first key element a respondent will read is whether they’d like a “strong leader”.

The researchers say their hypothesis was that people get to that point and think, “Of course I want a strong leader” – and pay less attention to the second half of the proposition, that those leaders shouldn’t bother with elections or parliament.

In their first experiment, the researchers therefore simply bolded and capitalised the second part of the statement, so it appeared to respondents as: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge WHO DOES NOT HAVE TO BOTHER WITH PARLIAMENT AND ELECTIONS?”

This resulted in a much lower level of agreement than seen in the original study – just 28% of Gen Z agreed with this version.

In a second experiment, the researchers asked a separate representative sample an even more direct question by swapping the wording “strong leader” for “dictator” so that the statement read: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that the UK would be a better place if a dictator was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections?”

This resulted in a lower level of agreement again – just 22% of Gen Z agreed that the UK would be a better place if a dictator was in charge.

Do Gen Z really think we shouldn’t bother with parliament or elections?

Despite this reduction in support when emphasising the more autocratic elements of the statement or explicitly including the term “dictator”, significant minorities of Gen Z still agree with the statements.

However, additional questions included in the study indicate the need for further caution in interpreting what this actually means to respondents, the authors say.

The researchers asked those who said they agree that the UK would be a better place if a dictator was in charge whether this meant they want a leader who faced “no checks or control of their actions by MPs in parliament” – and 52% of this group say they should face checks or controls of their actions by MPs.

Similarly, 49% of those who agree that the UK would be a better place if a dictator was in charge go on to say that actually that “leader should hold national elections”.

By combining the results from across these measures, the study produces a fairer representation of the real extent of Gen Z support for a dictator and their rejection of democracy.

Only 6% of Gen Z actually agree that the UK would be a better place if a dictator was in charge, that that dictator should face no checks or control from MPs in parliament, and should avoid holding national elections.

What are Gen Z thinking when they say they want a strong leader?

The researchers also asked Gen Z respondents to write in their own words what they were thinking when agreeing with the statement. The main theme from those responses was a focus on the “strong leader” element of the statement, with the majority of comments suggesting they just want someone who can get things done:

“Need someone with backbone.”

“Someone just needs to take charge and make important decisions, based off of information provided.”

This was often accompanied by a sense of how ineffectual parliament is, and limited faith in elections:

“I believe that a strong leader without the parliament can make decisions faster improving the state of the country at a quicker pace as parliament and elections tend to hold over periods of time.”

“I think a better leader with great policies will effect better change and make impact without passing through the parliament or election which is always a distraction.”

But a number of responses also highlighted the difficulty some had in interpreting the question:

“I’m confused, I think the statement confused me. I think we should have elections, but parliament is a scam to me. It feels like they earn so much and don’t help the common folk. But we need representation for the country.”

“I believe the first half of the statement, in that we need someone strong and experienced, however elections and parliament should still be considered.”

“I believe that strong leaders can bring decisive actions, clear direction and stability. It’s more about the need for effective leadership rather than disregarding democratise [sp] principles.”

Why is this a problem?

The high estimates and overinterpretation of the results from the study that suggested over half of Gen Z want a dictator risk adding to three serious problems, the researchers argue.

First, they add to the exaggerated sense of division we have between generations today.

Second, there is a risk that this type of striking discussion encourages a sense that such beliefs are in fact the norm among the generation themselves.

And third, the noise around this finding distracts us from real and serious issues with Gen Z’s engagement with UK political systems and institutions.

The researchers warn that we risk labelling a whole generation as “autocratic” when the real problem is a lack of confidence in the delivery of democratic institutions and systems.

Analysis of other major studies such as the World Values Survey (WVS) shows there is no deep issue with the principle of democracy among the UK public or younger generations; it’s perceptions of delivery that are the problem, the authors argue.

They cite findings from the WVS which show Gen Z are much less likely to believe the UK even is democratic: just 26% of Gen Z score the UK as “highly democratic”, compared with over half of the oldest generation.

This argue this is perhaps understandable when so many policy decisions – from pensions and housing to support for the costs of education and childcare – have favoured older generations.

They say it’s not surprising then that confidence in parliament and government are lower among younger generations. But they emphasise this isn’t just Gen Z, however: all but the oldest generations have dire and declining levels of trust and confidence.

Professor Bobby Duffy, Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, said:

“We always think this latest generation of young people are the worst in history. You can look at any era and find similar sentiments, going back to Socrates in 400BC, who lamented the ‘disrespect for authority’ shown by the young people of his day. This has been supercharged for us today with the media and social media’s use of generational labels to stereotype and divide generations.

“The reality is that nothing like half of Gen Z actually support a dictatorship in the UK, in any meaningful sense. They have significant issues with how the political system has not delivered for them, but they’re not looking to tear it up and replace it with autocratic leadership, and exaggerating that sense can only add to division and risk encouraging that outcome.

“We need to avoid the distraction of attention-grabbing figures and look carefully at what our younger generation actually believes. We do have serious issues with their faith in the system and our institutions, but mischaracterising these concerns only gets in the way of addressing them.”