Save the Lords!

Well, it appears Britain's Labor Party is at it again. This time, they plan to change centuries of parliamentary practice and call for a mostly elected House of Lords.\nHere's a brief overview of the current situation. The House of Lords is the upper of the two houses in the British Parliament. It is composed of 714 members, 92 of whom are hereditary members, others are appointed by the Queen, and 25 are bishops of the Anglican Church. Its powers have been curtailed in past years, but it still can challenge and stall legislation from the House of Commons.\nBlair's cabinet has called for a manifesto, demanding that 50 to 80 percent of the House of Lords be elected and that the hereditary peers be stripped of their right to sit and vote.\nIn a BBC News article, Labor's Patricia Hewitt said, "We'll complete the reform of the House of Lords, getting rid of the hereditary peers and allowing a free vote on composition ... and we'll modernise the Lords procedures to improve scrutiny." \nNothing definite has happened yet, but it is still sad that Britain's government is raping its own time-honored organization. The House of Lords was a much more powerful institution in the days that saw the rise and climax of the British Empire. Now it has been eroded by legislation. Many of its powers have been stripped, and the majority of seats are held by life-barons (non-hereditary titles) -- only two dukes, a few scattered marquises, earls and viscounts are what remain of the once-great titles that held hereditary posts. The roll of its members reveals a sadly watered-down legislative body, once one of the most revered in the world.\nWhat is wrong with having a House of Lords? To Americans who are unfamiliar with any such institution, it may seem anachronistic and foreign. But the idea makes perfect sense politically. It is a legislative body that doesn't have to prostitute itself to the electorate and be slave to their whims. It can deliberate over a bill based on its merits rather than its ability to win each member enough votes to hold onto his seat. Because it is not elected, it would be immune to lobbyists, corporate interests and mass hysteria.\nLet's also compare the durability of such houses. The Venetian Republic, which was essentially one big House of Lords, lasted exactly 1,100 years. France, which prides itself on its open democracy, has seen five republics in the past 203 years, not to mention intervening monarchies. These statistics say something positive for a non-elected house.\nAmericans might also have objections to the idea of nobility in general. It has been deeply ingrained in us by our constitution.\nLet's not think, though, that we are free of lords and ladies in this country. Here, they just don't have titles. Look at Hollywood first. It is a conglomeration of people who are rich and powerful because they act like other people in front of a camera -- no other reason. The level to which the public elevates them is absurd, especially when compared with the ridicule given to the British lords, who actually owe their titles to true merit.\nThen there are those Kennedys, Rockefellers, Roosevelts and Vanderbilts who have had massive amounts of money and power for generations and keep being elected into the most prestigious seats in the nation. Like it or not, our own system resembles the House of Lords, so maybe this construction develops naturally.\nThe House of Lords is not a backward institution, just a way of safeguarding the lawmaking body against precipitous decisions and electoral pandering.\nThat is why the House of Lords should be preserved -- and, indeed, expanded.