Image Credit: Unsplash
From South Carolina to Everywhere
The appointment of Lindsey Graham’s sister to the U.S. Senate caused a stir in Chinese social media — reactions like “this is basically feudalism” and “even America has hereditary politics now.” The discomfort is real, but most people couldn’t locate it within a broader context.
The truth is, the United States is a middle-of-the-pack player in this game. Nearly every self-described “mature democracy” has one or more legally legitimate but electorally hollow power-transfer mechanisms. They’ve just learned to dress them better and give them more respectable names.
This piece maps three of the most telling cases: the British House of Lords, the Japanese Emperor system, and the selection of the European Commission President. Each represents a different flavor of the same disease — legal procedure as a substitute for democratic legitimacy.
The House of Lords: 800 People Who Never Had to Campaign
The British House of Lords is the world’s longest-running institutional absurdity.
It has roughly 800 members. Not one was elected. Ninety-two are hereditary peers — their fathers died, they inherited the title and a seat in the legislature, no election required, no qualification check, no term limits. The remaining 700+ are appointed directly by the prime minister, typically to reward loyalists, retired MPs, and party donors.
This system has persisted for generations because no ruling party — Conservative or Labour — actually wants to give up the power to hand out lifetime peerages. In 2024, 68% of British voters told pollsters the Lords should be either elected or abolished. Parliamentary reform attempts have died quietly, every time, because the people who benefit from the current arrangement are the same people who write the rules.
Legal, because the law says so. Democratic, because nobody with the power to change it has any incentive to.
The Japanese Emperor: Symbolic Power Is Still Power
Japan’s postwar constitution describes the Emperor as “the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people” — with zero actual political authority. He signs no bills, commands no military, and cannot be evaluated by election, because the constitution states he “shall not have powers related to government.”
That careful construction is itself the point. Emperor Akihito’s 2019 abdication — rare in modern Japanese history — was technically an exception granted by special legislation, not an admission of frailty. The system cannot acknowledge weakness, so it rewrites the rules quietly instead.
The succession rules are even more striking: only male lineal descendants of the Emperor may inherit the throne. The Japanese imperial family went nearly six decades without a male birth (1965–2006) and nearly collapsed. The resolution — allowing female members to remain in the family after marriage, and considering succession through maternal lines — was treated as a constitutional crisis in the world’s third-largest economy.
Legal, because the constitution says so. Democratic, because “democracy” was never part of the design brief.
The European Commission President: Voting for Something Already Decided
In 2014, the EU introduced the “Spitzenkandidat” system — each party bloc would run a lead candidate for Commission President, and the largest bloc’s candidate would automatically get the job. It sounded like democratic deepening. It was theater.
By 2019, the first real test broke the system. The European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats, as expected. Their candidate was Manfred Weber, a German Christian Democrat. But French President Macron, coordinating with Italy and other leaders, shut Weber out in the European Council — and installed Ursula von der Leyen, a German defense minister with no Brussels mandate, as Commission President.
The entire negotiation happened before the European Parliament vote. Parliament approved her nomination 484 to 178 — in a secret ballot whose results were only released afterward, a procedural choice designed to shield dissenting MEPs from pressure. Members of Parliament were told, in effect: you can vote no, but then what?
In 2024, von der Leyen was “re-elected” by the same process — a Spitzenkandidat from the EPP again, and the same backroom deal at the Council level.
Legal, because the Lisbon Treaty grants the Council the right to propose. Democratic, because nobody in Brussels wants to explain it that plainly.
Why These Systems Persist
Every “legal-but-undemocratic” institution survives on the same logic: its beneficiaries are precisely the people with the power to reform it, and they face no accountability for leaving it unchanged.
The hereditary peers don’t complain because they are the system. The imperial family’s “symbolic” status is protected by constitutional inertia and the convenient ambiguity of what “symbolic” means when the entire post-war political order rests on it. The European Council selects the Commission President because the governments of 27 member states prefer a process they control to one they don’t.
Lindsey Graham’s sister is the blunt version — no packaging, no historical exceptionalism, just a name on a governor’s appointment letter. In global terms, she’s a mirror. Most democracies have their own versions; they just look more polished.
Next: A comparison of how Japan managed Emperor Akihito’s abdication reform versus Britain’s failure to abolish hereditary peers — why some democracies can quietly fix their undemocratic institutions and others cannot.
Leave a comment