It’s been a staple argument of despots and dictators for decades, even centuries. They’re not undemocratic you see. They’re actually far more democratic than those decadent people who rely on elections. Because democracy isn’t about elections after all, is it?
Such arguments, even when dressed up by sticking the word “democracy” into a country’s name, have rightly and widely been given short shrift. You’d have thought, therefore, that arguing that democracy doesn’t require elections would be an argument a Parliamentarian these days might steer clear of.
But no.
Step forward Baroness D’Souza:
I do not believe that elections are the only form of democracy. I do not think you can argue that this House [of Lords] is undemocratic.
Arguing that the House of Lords is undemocratic but that doesn’t matter is one thing. But arguing that it is democratic in its current state? Excuse me whilst I rescue my jaw from the floor.
By the way, she’s not a fringe peer with an eccentric view of democracy. She’s convenor of the Crossbench Peers.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
11 Comments
I’m going to share her comments with my A level Politics students. Strangely enough, they’ve all just had exams including House of Lords reform.
I can confirm the idea of the House of Lords being democratic in its current form scores exactly zero as an idea on my syllabus (Edexcel).
Firstly, I will declare an Interest – my Dad is Lord Brian Cotter – Lib Dem Peer.
Secondly, I will declare a further interest – Baroness D’Souza came to speak to the 6th form @ my eldest son’s comprehensive school several months ago and he was highly impressed with her intelligence, commonsense and sheer “impressiveness” – if there is such a word in the English dictionary ?? He remains highly dischuffed with the Liberal Democrat party because of the betrayal over university tuition fees.
Thirdly, are we as a party REALLY going to sell (at the current time) to the British electorate a further elected and highly remunerated set of politicians with all the “expenses” (sic), staff, capital office equipment etc, etc, etc that this will necessitate ??
Fourthly, this “piece” from Mark Pack, someone I normally admire had something of the “tabloid press” in it’s sneering, “holier than thou” tone. Please can we raise this H of L debate to a higher, more measured and sensible level ??
Regards,
Cllr. Nick Cotter.
Civil war could be described as a democratic process.
I thought she was trying to link the fact that the majority of members are now appointed by those who are democratically elected to some type of democratic mandate. An interesting (but in my view flawed) argument.
Nick, Baroness D’Souza is perhaps demonstrating that while you be be very capable in many areas, you can still say something of incredible stupidity in others. I remember watching her on Newsnight a while ago, and not being impressed at her defence of the current House of Lords. It seemed very much like she was defending her current job, and not much else. Very self serving.
As to your third point, the HoL already has most of those, except for a salary for the members.
When such an ‘esteemed’ person says such stupid things, it’s rather right to knock them down for it.
Nick Cotter and Steve Way have said it all really, Mark Pack’s greatest vice is his tendency to start preaching… it seems for every insightful or thought-provoking piece he writes there is also a sneering, condescending, “tabloidesque” one.
As Steve correctly points out, Baroness D’Souza was referring to the fact that the majority of peers are appointed by democratically elected representatives- to suggest that her argument had something in common with dictators of Kim Jong-Il’s ilk is disingenuous at best.
The Party needs rather more people who can communicate using a tabloid press style – short, pithy, puts the arguments across in a forceful way which can be easily understood by those not blessed with a sophisticated education.
i thought Mark was bang on the money. well said – and let’s withdraw the whip from libdem peers who oppose elections.
There is scope within the confines of democracy for the legislature to appoint people to enhance its output. To that small extent I agree with the thrust of Baroness D’Souza’s argument.
But the House of Lords votes on nearly every bill. It is part of the legislature. Lords aren’t simply appointed to enhance specific Bills, they’re appointed to have their say on every Bill. The legislature must be fully elected to be fully democratic.
Thinking out loud: perhaps a middle-ground would be to have appointed places on select committees. That would give legislation input from appointed experts (which seems to be the best argument for appointed Lords) without having an entire body as a direct part of the legislature.
I think Duncan Stott’s suggestion is a good one. In fact I believe that’s what councils already do. Arguing that lots of other bodies aren’t elected so everything is OK, isn’t it? – as I heard a peer formerly known as Nigel Lawson saying on last night’s Newsnight is missing the point. The job of the House of Lords is to help make law. If the rest of us break those laws we can end up having to pay fines or going to prison. That’s why it matters that the people who make the laws are accountable to us.
I don’t agree with a single term of seven years, though. Two terms of three – or four – years each would make the elected peer much more accountable.
Whilst the heredity – and even life-time – nature of peerages, and definitely the bishops or Welsh beards jar with me, the HoL is perhaps the best thing about our ‘constitution’. People who have accomplished summat – in theory, at least, and not simply failed to be elected as MP or even selected as PPC – in their professional lives as opposed to another bunch of hacks on the make.
~alec