The Tapestry of Democracy, or, a National Lottery of Peerages? (Should the House of Lords be abolished?)

Member Name: beoram

Product:	Should the House of Lords be abolished?
Date:	24/11/01 (597 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: unbiased counterbalance to the 'career-politicians&# 39; of the HoC

Disadvantages: ?

Let me preface this opinion by stating that I am an ardent traditional (‘GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!’) and ALSO a fervent socialist (‘WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!’). I’ve read through many of the opinions in this category and found some of them quite excellent (even the ones I wholly disagreed with). But one point which emerges quite clearly is that (amongst others ‘groups’) there are ‘traditionalists’ who support the Crown and the House of Lords [HoL] as an important part of British culture (which I agree with); and there are the ‘modernists’ who see the HoL as undemocratic and outdated, who are interested in the rights of the ‘common man’ (which I also agree with). [a majority of these ‘modernists’ also are in favour of abolishment of the Monarchy—often ostensibly on the grounds that it is a waste of the tax-payers’ money: an invalid argument since the Monarchy doesn’t really cost the taxpayer much at all, but rather, more than pays for itself in tourist-trade.] No ‘traditionalist’ argument is ever going to convince a ‘modernist’ (such as scotgirl, who I find very insightful, even if I disagree with her on many topics), and no ‘modernist’ argument is ever going to convince a ‘traditionalist’.

So I’m going to attempt to write an opinion supporting the HoL without relying much on traditionalist-grounds (though I’ll freely admit that I have traditional reasons for supporting the HoL as well). Let us think on the establishment of a sensible, decent, well-functioning government.

---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
THE IDEAL GOVERNMENT: Democracy and Representation
---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
In an ideal, Platonic world, the best government would be a ‘dictatorship’ of a philoso
pher-god-king who also always knew (and made) for right decision for everyone and everything. We can quickly dismiss this notion as we live in a far from ideal world, one sadly lacking in philosopher-god-kings.

In the modern Western world, some form of democracy has generally been held to be the ideal form of government. As Winston Churchill once said, ‘[democracy] is the worst form of government except [for] all those other forms that have been tried’. ‘Democracy’ is literally [in Greek], ‘rule by the people’. It doesn’t take a keen eye to note that there is no democracy in the world which is really ‘ruled by the people’. Why not? Again, _ideally_ it sounds a great idea, even if it does have a few drawbacks: whatever the majority of the people decide is what is. One can’t make all of the people happy all of the time, so the next best option would seem to make whatever political decision makes the _most_ people happy.

But a true democracy would require that *every* political decision be made via a referendum. This is obviously untenable: this entire populace of nation has neither the time nor, in many cases, the knowledge for a ‘true’ democracy to work. Thus, we compromise by electing those people who views most closely co-incide with ours as our representatives in the government (we say the word ‘representative’ so often, but think about what it really means: a ‘representative’ is someone who stands in for us in government, who ‘represents’ our views—at least, in theory). Again, it doesn’t take a very sharp mind to see how many things can go wrong in a representative-democracy and everyone is aware in fact of how many things have gone wrong in Western representative-democracies.

The root of many of the problems of representative-democracies seems to me to be that our ‘representatives’ become career-poli
ticians. And what we really want are representatives, and not politicians. But is there really any feasible way to keep the two notions separate? No, no, not really. This is one of the realities of the world. Our representatives become politicians, and, in many cases, corrupt politicians. We do the best we can.

But there does exist a means of counter-balancing some of the faults of our representative-democracy, run by representative/politicians in the House of Commons: a second chamber, the House of Lords. Is it a perfected crafted and weighted counter-balance? Does it level the scales of justice completely? No, but have you a better idea?

---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
THE SHAPE OF THE 2ND CHAMBER: Politics and Genetics
---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
The advantage of an [unelected] 2nd chamber is that its members are not representative/politicians, but simply *representatives*. Of course, they’re not democratically-elected representatives, but then that’s the whole point, isn’t it? The advantage of democratically-elected reps is that we get to choose them. The disadvantage is that this often makes them much more concerned with their public appearance then with the public good (and, often, none of the candidates is really to our liking), and the party-system means that the elected reps’ decisions are also often heavily-coloured by intra-party politics, rather by the wants and needs of those they are actually intended to represent. So, yes, the HoL is definitely ‘undemocratic’—but, if you keep in mind the flaws of the representative democracy, this emerges as a _good_ thing.

Unelected officials have advantages over elected officials: they needn’t worry so much over their public image (as they are chosen for life) and they aren’t so likely to be ruled by party-politics. We wouldn̵
7;t want a government made up entirely of unelected representatives, but likewise I would say that they don’t want a government made up entirely of elected representatives either. What we want is a balance. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is optimal – the best of available options.

Right. So why not have a second chambers whose members are appointed. I think this is a much worse idea than an elected 2nd chamber. Who is to appoint them? The government? For the government to be able to fill a 2nd chamber with persons of its choosing would be horrendous, for obviously they would choose those people whose views match their own. To allow those ‘democratically-elected’ representatives, whose decisions are likely to be heavily-based upon party-politics which have little or no bearing on the wants or needs of the people, to be the ones who determine the membership of the 2nd chamber is not only undemocratic, but foolish. And if one party later loses favour with the populace and another party gains control of the Commons, that party—no longer supported by the people—may still have a substantial degree of power obtained by cramming the 2nd chamber with its own people. This is obviously not to be desired.

If we are to have unelected representatives—as I think we should, for reasons already stated—then they should be chosen by some *disinterested*, *unbiased* mechanism. And—by lucky chance—we already have such a mechanism: Nature. The non-appointment, hereditary peers of the 2nd chamber were ‘chosen’ by Nature. They occupy their positions by the random chance of their birth. And, since they are not thus career-politicians, they often have a much wider experience (in academia, in business, in the arts, &c.) which has the potential in fact to put them _more_ in touch with the ‘common man’; and they are much less likely to be have their decisions coloured by party-politics,
since they needn’t rely on the support of any particular party for their position.

You might still think this unfair, due to the monetary-status of the peers and the fact that they may be ruled by ‘family-politics’ rather than party-politics. But not all of the Lords are rich, and, on the whole, I certainly don’t think they number within the wealthiest people in the kingdom. And ‘blue-blooded’ children disagree with the forebearers as often as us commoners, so I don’t think ‘family-politics’ is really an issue. But it is still certain families who ‘provide’ the Lords, you might say. But, as of yet, the Lords (unlike Scottish sheep) don’t clone themselves—there is new genetic material being ‘injected’ into noble families constantly.

In any case, I see clear advantages to a 2nd chamber selected by an unbiased mechanism. I’ve suggested Nature as such a mechanism—if you know of some other _disinterested_ apparatus…

---------------------------------------------
COMPROMISE: A National Lottery?
---------------------------------------------
I doubt that I have yet convinced any of the ‘anti-Lords’ of the advantageous of a hereditary membership of the 2nd chamber. The ‘modernists’ are still going to say that the Lords are an out-dated institution, with silly titles, &c. Fair enough. But I think my advocation of the clear advantages of an unbiased, disinterested determination of the membership of the 2nd chamber is a sound argument.

So what’s the solution? Delink membership in the 2nd chamber from the hereditary peerages—the ‘modernists’ most likely agree with me on that much—but don’t let’s delink membership of the 2nd chamber from an unbiased source of selection.

We can hold a ‘National Peerage Lottery’. Everyone gets one (1) ticket
and whenever a Lord dies or retires, we randomly pull a number out of a hat and whosever’s ticket matches is offered a place in the 2nd Chamber. We probably need to limit it to UK citizens over a certain age (30?-I don’t know). To keep the ‘traditionalist’ happy though, we could keep the peerages linked to the seats in the 2nd Chamber perhaps.

And just think what fun this could be:-- “Wife: ‘Hello, dear, how was your day?’, Husband: ‘Fabulous, I’ve just been made the Duke of Leicester!’, Wife: ‘That’s wonderful, love. What should we have for dinner?’, Husband: ‘Let’s celebrate and get a take-away curry…er, and in future, I'd prefer you to address me as Your Lordship...’”

-------------------------
CONCLUSIONS
-------------------------
But all humour aside—and though I certainly labour under no illusions that my ‘national peerage lottery’ suggestion will be adopted—I actually think that it would be a far better idea than either an elected or an appointed 2nd chamber. However, since the hereditary membership is still partially in place, I’m in favour of that (besides, since I’m a ‘traditionalist’ I prefer it anyway, though I’d be happy to settle for the ‘national lottery’ compromise). I do hope Tony Blair’s crusade to ‘root out conservatism’ hasn’t irreparably damaged the HoL.

I see the form of the British government as a tapestry: new threads are constantly being woven in, and the colours of these thread and the style of the weaving evolves and changes over time—and this is only as it should be. To weave a new pattern for a new time is only just and proper. To rip out an old section of the tapestry with little thought for the consequences doesn’t make a new, 'stream-lined', ‘modernised’ tapestry.
It doesn't create a better pattern. It only leaves us with a torn and tattered tapestry.

---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
some other 'pro-Lords' opinions I found useful:
*'We need two chambers to defend the people's views' - by Dunks
*'Yes, a 17yr old supports the Lords!' - by beano
*'The House of Lords is the last hope of the common man' - by Alan Rice

Summary: