One considers itself to be “the mother” of democratic parliaments, the other is an Islamic theocracy. While Britain’s and Iran’s legislatures are vastly different, they do share something in common: clerics.
Twenty-six Church of England bishops and archbishops automatically sit in the British House of Lords, the UK’s unelected upper chamber, a centuries-old right that angers democracy campaigners and secularists.
Electoral reformers complain that the UK is the world’s sole democratic sovereign state to reserve legislative seats for religious representatives. They say that Iran is the only other country to do so.
The Anglican bishops were in the spotlight recently when they and fellow peers scrutinized Conservative British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s controversial plan to deport migrants to Rwanda, as they prepare to vote on the scheme soon.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby — the highest-ranking cleric in the Church of England, the leading church of global Anglicanism — warned that the proposal was leading the UK down a “damaging path.”
Speaking from the House of Lords’ distinctive red benches, Welby said Sunak’s contentious plan, decried by rights groups, would “outsource” the UK’s “legal and moral responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers.”
His intervention in the highly charged political issue highlighted the presence of the Anglican leaders in the House of Lords, which dates back to medieval times and comes from the Church of England’s position as England’s establishment church.
The bishops are known as Lords Spiritual and have the same rights revising and voting on legislation as appointed life peers and hereditary peers, who together are called Lords Temporal.
“I think they see themselves as offering some sort of moral dimension,” said Daniel Gover, a politics expert at Queen Mary University of London.
The number of Lords Spiritual has fallen from about 90 in the 1300s to the 26 it has been capped at since 1847. Today, they represent just 3 percent of the House of Lords’ total membership of 785.
Five senior bishops and archbishops automatically receive spots, and the church selects the other 21.
They take on portfolios for specific policy areas that interest them and must retire when they are 70, unlike other peers. They have no party affiliation, so are not “whipped” into voting a certain way.
Richard Chapman, head of parliamentary affairs for the Church of England, said the bishops take their role “extremely seriously.”
“If they vote on an amendment to a bill it is because they want to improve it, or because there is some wider principle at stake,” he said.
It is “not because of a party political line or because they want to advance or set back the interest of this or that party.”
However, their presence is controversial.
Critics say that other British churches — like the protestant Church of Scotland — are not reserved seats.
Religious leaders can be appointed as secular peers, though.
Kathy Riddick of Humanists UK, a charity which promotes secularism, says the places are “out of step” with a modern Britain that is increasingly non-religious, and among those who do have a faith, non-Anglican.
“The only other sovereign state which awards clerics of the established religion votes in the legislature is Iran,” Riddick said.
More than 100 lawmakers and lords comprising the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group called in 2020 for the Church of England’s automatic representation to be repealed, while also making the comparison with Iran.
Gover stresses that the bishops’ limited influence is incomparable with the considerable power that Shiite clerics wield in Iran’s theocratic republic. The Lords Spiritual tend to have a relatively low attendance due to full-time roles running dioceses, and their votes rarely affect the final result.
“It’s clearly a very different type of representation,” Gover said.
The bishops have survived numerous attempts at reform, but another threat might come if the opposition Labour Party wins a general election later this year as expected.
Its leader Keir Starmer has called the upper chamber “undemocratic” and “indefensible,” and has said he would like to see it replaced with an elected “Assembly of the Nations and Regions.”
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS