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.”
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS