The House of Lords is a peculiar mix of tradition, political power, and aristocratic governance. The political institution is undemocratic, with unelected members influencing legislation. It is no surprise that one questions: Should the House of Lords exist today where democratic governance is seen as the gold standard of government?
John Locke, the empiricist philosopher who inspired the sentiment of the US Constitution, created liberal democracy. Locke is well known for his theories on the natural right to ‘life, Liberty and property’ and the social contract. Legitimate government, according to Locke, was founded on the consent of the governed, not through heredity aristocratic rule.
Locke would find the existence of the House of Lords a contradiction to the very principles of democratic governance. To Locke, any institution in government that permits individuals to exercise power without the consent of the governed violates the principle of justice.
Locke’s verdict: the House of Lords should not exist in a modern democracy, and it opposes the democratic principle that legitimate authority is grounded in the consent of the governed.
Shifting gears to Thomas Hobbes- the philosopher with a dark view of human nature-, he argued that life without absolute government would be “nasty, brutish, and short”.
Interestingly, Hobbes’s political philosophy would oppose the House of Lords. Not because it is undemocratic (no, Hobbes didn’t care much for democracy) but because the House of Lords may risk political instability. In this regard, Hobbes would disregard the House of Commons or any democratically elected branch of government.
Instead, Hobbes’s vision for good government would consist of absolute authority. This could be through a leader or even a small council, just so long as their power is absolute and minimises the risks of returning to the state of nature (the period of human history where no government existed).
The House of Lords debate is a tug-of-war between unique visions of good governance. Locke, the promoter of liberal democracy, argues that legitimate government is built on the consent of the governed, and the House of Lords undermines this principle. This critique is reflected in relevant frustrations, such as the Lords blocking the 2012 Reform Bill, which aimed to introduce elected peers. Hobbes, valuing stability above all else, would dismiss both the Lords and democracy, favouring absolute power. The Lords’ role in delaying Brexit legislation in 2017, despite public mandate, might be seen as instability Hobbes would wish to avoid.
Featured Image Credit: Pexels Free Photos.
I am a third-year Politics and Journalism Studies student at the University of Stirling (2022-) and a writer and sub-editor for the Brig for over a year (Nov. 2023-), focusing mainly on political topics.
