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.”
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS