If you were to ask someone in the street what democracy means to them, you’d probably get an answer along the lines of rule by the people. The idea that a government must be elected to have legitimacy is strongly ingrained in western culture. In spite of this, voting levels are dropping across the richer parts of the world. Many believe that, no matter who is in power, nothing changes. Those in the middle or top just want to be left alone while people at the bottom have given up hope of ever improving their lot through voting.

There is plenty of reason to take this view. Whether the government is somewhat to the left or somewhat top the right, big companies will continue to wield huge power. The shift from public to private provision in transport, education and healthcare continues no matter who is in power. Changing governments can still effect some change but not the sort of fundamental change which could radically improve people’s lives. In spite of these problems, there remains a strong attachment to the idea of democracy. It’s as though people are saying: “Only I decide whether or not I should vote. I don’t want to vote but that’s my decision to make.”

Fortunately for those who can’t be bothered voting, their democratic rights are protected anyway. The personal freedoms of speech, assembly, trade union membership and religion are vital parts of any democracy. People have died for these rights just as they died for the right to vote. While the ultimate expression of democracy, voting to elect a government, is in decline, the subsidiary aspects are very much alive and well.

Is it possible then to have the freedoms of democracy without an elected government? Would people find this satisfactory? Empirical evidence suggests not. As examples I’m taking two small places which otherwise have very little in common; Northern Ireland and Hong Kong. Both are relatively free societies and both currently lack a properly accountable government.

For most of the last 30 years Northern Ireland has been ruled from London by British ministers who were elected to represent British constituencies. “Direct rule” as it’s known is a consequence of the long violent struggle in Northern Ireland. It is a fall-back option when Northern Ireland’s elected representatives are unable to agree a government structure. Nevertheless, British Secretaries of State, with their plumy accents and patronising platitudes, rule over a sullen and resentful statelet.

Only since 1998 has Northern Ireland had a truly representative government of the local parties. Even this advance has been stymied by periodic suspension of the local administration because of disputes about paramilitary weapons. Currently we are in “suspension” i.e. rule from London. The press can print what they like, people can go to church or join a trade union but something is missing. Public opinion is strongly in favour of a return to local rule. No-one, be they nationalist or unionist, really wants to be ruled by people who can’t even pronounce our place names correctly.

There are some similarities with the situation in Hong Kong. The territory enjoys a high level of political freedom under China’s “one country, two systems” model. People have the right to protest, even to join the Falun Gong but they don’t have any meaningful political power. The Chief Executive, Tung Chee-Hwa, holds power only as long as his political masters in Beijing wish him to.

It emerged last year that the people of Hong Kong are not content with this situation. When Tung introduced an “anti-subversion” law which would have curtailed many of the freedoms which Hong Kongers enjoy, a million people came into the streets to protest. Protesters called not just for the law to be dropped but also for Tung to stand aside for a democratically elected leader.

These two examples seem to suggest that while personal freedoms are important, they aren’t enough. Whether it’s angry protest in Hong Kong or quiet dissatisfaction in Northern Ireland the message is the same. Freedom isn’t enough, people don’t want to be ruled by someone else’s bastards, they want to be ruled by their own bastards.