Farewell to the Hereditary Peers

I have marked the occasion of the final disappearance of the hereditary peers from the UK's House of Lords with this defence of the hereditary principle.

This is the conclusion:

I have a high regard for democracy, because unless it is unusually corrupt, it makes possible the eviction of unpopular ruling parties without bloodshed, and that counts for a lot. Democratic institutions are regarded as having legitimacy, and elected officials who promised particular things when campaigning for votes are regarded as having a “mandate” to implement them. These are good things which help political systems to function and to overcome all kinds of challenges. But this all works because of the western political tradition, which attributes legitimacy to these things. This tradition is reasonable, but it is not necessary. Things could be done in different ways, and in different times and places they have been done in different ways.

The Homeric tradition regards a warrior elite as having the mandate to rule: perhaps it makes sense that those prepared to die for their community should rule it, and it may make for an efficient and just political system. Other communities, living in other circumstances, may focus on a religious elite, or an intellectually, culturally, or economically preponderant class of one kind or another, as natural rulers. If it works for them, it is not for us to criticise it.

The hereditary principle is characteristic of a pre-modern political system, but if it was reasonable then, there is no sense in which it is in principle wrong now. The test of its legitimacy, in fact, is the degree to which it is part of the political tradition of a community. The hereditary House of Lords has been part of Britain’s, and England’s, political system for at least 800 years, so the case for it is pretty conclusive. 

Read the whole thing there (paywalled).

Support the Latin Mass Society