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.”
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS