In the British Parliament, the hereditary peer seats in the House of Lords, which have continued for more than 700 years, are disappearing into history.
According to major British outlets including the BBC and Sky News on the 11th local time, the House of Lords passed a reform bill that completely abolishes the voting rights of hereditary peers. Experts said it is a significant decision that puts an end to the long-standing practice in which unelected power, merely by inheriting family lineage, deeply intervenes in the national lawmaking process.
The British Parliament is a bicameral system composed of an elected House of Commons and an unelected House of Lords. The Lords review, amend and supplement laws enacted by the Commons. They also check the executive's policies and lead in-depth debates. But the chamber has a fundamental, inherent limitation in that it is not formed through elections. Historically, the Lords was a closed space filled only with male nobles who passed on their titles from generation to generation and senior clergy of the Church of England. It was only in the 1950s that the life peerage system, in which the government recommends and the monarch appoints, was first introduced. Since then, as retired politicians and prominent figures from various walks of life joined as life peers, the structure has transformed so that life peers now make up an overwhelming majority.
The number of members in the House of Lords now well exceeds 800. It is the second-largest and bloated legislative body in the world after the National People's Congress of China. Considering that the number of members of the House of Commons, who are directly elected by the British public, is 650, it is a distorted shape where the tail wags the dog.
The Labor Party government carried out sweeping Lords reforms starting in 1999, expelling more than 600 hereditary peers. However, to quell fierce backlash from nobles who stood to lose vested interests and to soften the institutional shock, an exception was made to temporarily retain seats for 92 people. It is precisely these 92 who will leave the Lords permanently with the passage of this bill.
The hereditary peerage system has continuously faced criticism in Britain as an anachronistic product rarely found in advanced countries that have adopted modern democracy. The situation in which a person holds lifelong, formidable power to make national laws depending on who their parents are and which family they come from was strongly criticized as directly violating the principle of equality and the foundation of democracy.
In particular, in Britain, the ethical lapses of nobles have come under the spotlight, with Lord Peter Mandelson resigning in disgrace in February after allegations surfaced that he had an inappropriate past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a sex offender who exploited minors. Public demand to fundamentally overhaul a Lords organization that is outdated and whose sense of ethics has slackened is higher than ever.
Angela Smith, the Lords leader who oversees the government's legislative agenda in the upper chamber, emphasized immediately after the bill passed, "The Lords perform essential and significant roles in the bicameral system, but no one should hold a seat in Parliament simply by virtue of an inherited title." Smith added, "This is not to belittle the individual contributions made by hereditary peers, but a process to realize the democratic principles agreed by Parliament 25 years ago." The equality consciousness that has spread throughout British society has forcefully pushed out an old political system based on status.
On the other hand, there are also voices that defend the positive functions the hereditary system has long served and lament its sudden exit. Hereditary peers do not need to cater to populism with an eye on the next election. Therefore, the claim goes, they were able to conduct cool-headed policy reviews focused on the nation's long-term interests without being swayed by short-term public opinion or partisan interests.
Nicholas True, the Conservative Party's leader in the Lords, said, "Many hereditary peers had flaws in the past, but most have faithfully served the country and made tangible contributions to improving thousands of laws." The Earl of Devon, who is leaving the Lords, said, "Our family has defended Britain for 900 years," adding, "I want to return to the Lords on merit, not privilege," leaving an aftertaste.
Among modern democracies, it is hard to find cases like the British House of Lords where hereditary nobles based on lineage automatically hold seats in the legislature. Only a few countries remain exceptions, such as Bhutan or Eswatini, where the monarch's powers are still strong or where traditional chieftain systems are reflected in the legislative process.
Advanced countries that adopt bicameral systems, such as the United States or Germany, fill their upper chambers with elected members representing each state or secure legitimacy by having them dispatched by local governments. Japan once had a House of Peers modeled directly on the pre–World War II British Lords, but it disappeared into history after defeat in the war and the abolition of the Imperial Constitution. European constitutional monarchies such as Spain or Sweden retain only the monarch as a symbolic head of state, while legislative power is thoroughly and exclusively vested in parliaments formed by elections.
The historic bill abolishing hereditary peers in the Lords will be finalized as formal law after the official assent of King Charles III. Hereditary peers, who have held their places in the Lords for 700 years, are set to leave the chamber permanently around May, when the current parliamentary session officially ends.