Ducal Diversity?

Britain’s House of Lords expelled most of its hereditary lords in 1999. This may well have been a very good thing on balance, but as The Economist shows , it did have the regrettable effect of making regions outside of London “more marginalized than ever.”

Those old dukes may have lacked the common touch, but many of them lived outside of London. And indeed, I expect that it was a matter of pride (for those who still took their titles seriously) to cultivate regional consciousness—to know what was thought and felt in regions where their family once had true dominion.

Now the lords are mainly appointed politicians clustered in London. There is a movement afoot to make the House more representative by making it “a body that is mainly or entirely elected.” A recent white paper “outlined various electoral systems, all based on regional or sub-regional constituencies.” But it seems likely that non-Londoners will often have to make their pick among carpetbagging politicos from the capital.

This situation highlights an interesting fact about modern liberal democracies. Egalitarian rationalizing of political institutions generally leads to increased centralization and the creation of a homogeneous political class. We come to settle for a superficial diversity that is actually less representative of the range of views, interests and experiences in a society than the non-liberal institutions we impatiently destroy. Our rulers may be democratically elected and come in all the hues of the rainbow, but this counts for little if they all have the habits, attitudes, and experiences of urban political elites.