Should the House of Lords be Abolished - Assignment Example

The House of Lords, as it exists today in Great Britain, is a legacy of the Royalist system of government that has no place in a modern democracy. The primary reason for this is the nature of hereditary titles and the relation of a singular religion, the Church of England, within the structure of the Upper House. “The Lords Spiritual are made up of the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester as well as specific bishops of the Church of England. The Lords Temporal are made up of hereditary Peers elected under Standing Orders, life Peers, Law Lords, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.” (UK Parliament, 2010) Modern democracy asserts the popular representation of values in government through elected officials as a structural characteristic. Most British people, on this basis, oppose the House of Lords as a political institution because of the power given to royalty and hereditary legacy within the body itself. As an Angus Reid poll in 2010 showed: “In the online survey of a representative sample of 2,004 adults, three-in-ten respondents (30%) believe the UK does not need a House of Lords, and want all legislation to be reviewed and authorized by the House of Commons. Two-in-five Britons (40%) think the UK needs a House of Lords, but want the people to be allowed to take part in the process to choose lords. Only nine per cent of respondents think the current guidelines that call for appointed lords should not be modified. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) support holding a nationwide referendum to decide the future of the House of Lords. A clear majority of Britons (58%) supports the notion of allowing the people to directly elect their lords. Conversely, only three-in-ten (30%) are in favour of abolishing the House of Lords altogether.” (Angus Reid, 2010) Thus, the British people are calling for reforms in which politicians and not royals would be elected to the House of Lords in a manner similar to the way the U.S. Senate functions in American democracy, including elections, term limits, and “checks & balances” between the upper & lower Houses of Parliament, rather than the total abolishment of the House of Lords. The House of Lords in fundamentally undemocratic, having been instituted as a means to limit the expression of the people’s will politically when it comes into conflict with the interests of the royals in society. In the 14th century, “two distinct houses emerged. One composed of shire and borough representatives became known as the Commons; the other of religious leaders (Lords Spiritual) and magnates (Lords Temporal) became known as the Upper House.” (UK Parliament, 2010) In the 21st century, the division between “commoners” and “lords” is a morally repugnant principle to all but most royals. The vast majority of the populace rejects any difference between men or women related to the stature of their birth, with the exception of recognizing the degree to which wealth and privilege are linked. Royalty requires faith, like religion, but it is a faith that has been lost by most British people in favor of secular humanism. In this context, the existence of the “Lords Spiritual” in the chamber is a further undemocratic and reactionary aspect that few people can find in accordance with modern principles of governance, including in their own personal morality. Therefore, on the basic principle of equality, through which modernity finds respect for all cultures and minorities, minority rule in the House of Lords is rejected. The hereditary peer has been gradually reformed out of participation in the House of Lords by a Parliament following the popular consent. In many ways, it is feared, were there not reform of this system, the people would be more vocal for its total abolishment. That other countries formerly under Royal rule have abandoned their archaic practices to history and changed to a modern system of representative government based on scientific, and not religious, ideas is evident around the world. Traditionally, anyone with a hereditary title under the system of Peerage would be able to sit in the House of Lords to decide legislation on matters of the country, making the body huge and unwieldy in practice. “The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. 92 hereditary peers remain in the House until full reform.” (UK Parliament, 2010) As previously, nearly one thousand hereditary peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords, this was considered one of the largest reforms of the system in modern times, and was undertaken on through the administration of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Life Peers may be born without royal title, but are elevated through a process of consultation between the Queen and Prime Minister, so that exemplary and exceptional citizens can be “elevated” to the stature of royalty, and be given a title to serve in the upper House. More than even the House of Lords, it is this system of titles that are decreed by royalty to royalty, creating a self-serving and fundamentally corrupt system at its base. “Life peers are elevated to the peerage by the monarch in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. Opposition party leaders can also nominate, via the Prime Minister. Life peers tend to be the 'great and the good' of the day and are characterised by their expertise and experience in their field, which may have been in politics as an MP. An Appointments Commission, charged with making independent nominations of so-called 'people's peers' also operates. It occasionally passes names to the Prime Minister for nomination.” (UK Politics, 2010) It is this process of nomination and confirmation of each other for their own benefit that the public rejects of the Peers, as well as the Lords denomination of the rest of society as commoners, Fundamentally, this is most important, for every citizen rankles at having his or her humanity, and its relation to other citizens, reduced or demeaned as “common” vs. “royal”. It is through the arrogance and elitism inherent in this position that royalty will eventually be abolished everywhere in favor of the democratic principles. The House of Lords and royalty represent the last vestiges of a type of corruption and racism that fails to value men as equal – this is self-evident. Yet, in this context it is telling that the people do not want the House of Lords abolished, but rather reformed. A reformed House of Lords would eliminate lifetime, hereditary Peerage and the system of titles to create an upper body of the Parliament that served all of society, rather than what is self-defined as the royal interest. It would eliminate the reserved seats for Spiritual Peers and replace them with elected representatives. “SUPPORT FOR THE royal family is steadily declining, although it still commands respect from significant, though ageing, sections of the population. In 1990, 75% thought Britain would be worse off without a monarch. In 2000 it was 44%. And an ICM poll in April 2001 showed that 34% believed Britain would be better off without a monarchy. A Mori poll for the royal household found that only one in four people believed the family was hard-working. One in ten considered them good value for money.” (Socialism Today, 2002) Thus, reform of the House of Lords or movements to abolish it are founded on the people’s view on monarchy in general. When support for the monarchy is low, and Lords are targeted as examples of corruption in governance, then MPs on the popular level can further their careers by appealing to this public sentiment during the elections. Lacking the will to change more pressing economic or geo-political parties, reform of the House of Lords can also mask and hide other issues in the greater democracy that need reform. Nevertheless, despite the modern public’s opinions concerning royalty, their patriotism conditions them to favor not the abolition of the House of Lords, but its reform into an elected body, to make it compatible with the sentiments of modern British democracy. Sources: Canseco, Mario (2010). Most Britons Want to Elect the Members of the House of Lords. Angus Reid Public Opinion. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: < http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43375/most-britons-want-to-elect-the-members-of-the-house-of-lords/> House of Lords Guides (2006). Life Peers. Politics UK. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: < http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/political-guides/life-peers-$450897.htm> Lord Norton (2008). How many hereditary peers sit in Parliament? Life and Work in the House of Lords. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: Thain, Manny (2002). Monarchy in the UK. Socialism Today. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: UK Parliament (2010). Legislation affecting the House of Lords FAQs. Parliament UK. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: UK Parliament (2010). Lords Spiritual and Temporal. Parliament UK. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: UK Parliament (2010). HISTORY OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. House of Lords Briefing. Date accessed Dec. 12th, 2010: Read More