(ANALYSIS) Two months ago, on July 4, Keir Starmer made history by becoming the U.K.’s first openly atheistic prime minister.

Born in London and raised in Surrey, Starmer’s early life was marked by his education at the selective state Reigate Grammar School. His political journey began early when he joined the Labour Party Young Socialists at age 16. In 1985, after graduating with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Leeds, he went on to earn a postgraduate Bachelor of Civil Law degree from St. Edmund Hall, Oxford.

After being called to the bar, Starmer focused mainly on criminal defense work, specializing in human rights. He also served as a human rights adviser to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and was made a Queen's Counsel in 2002.

READ: Europe Is Not Very Religious — And There’s The Data To Show It

Starmer’s experience with Northern Ireland's policing played a significant role in his decision to enter politics. In 2015, Starmer was elected to the House of Commons. As a backbencher, he supported the remain campaign during the 2016 European Union referendum and pushed for a second referendum on Brexit.

In Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, he served as Shadow Brexit Secretary. After Labour’s defeat in the 2019 general election and Corbyn's resignation, Starmer won the 2020 leadership election on a left-wing platform. As the opposition leader, he shifted Labour toward the political center, focused on eliminating antisemitism within the party and led Labour to significant gains in the 2023 and 2024 local elections.

The 61 year old’s ascent as the U.K.'s first openly atheist leader marks a significant milestone in British political history. This development prompts the question: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Unsurprisingly, the answer is rather complicated. Today's U.K. is vastly different from the country of Starmer's childhood. Back then, Christian values were considered a more fundamental part of society. Now, less than half of the British population identify as Christian.

Meanwhile, 6.5% identify as Muslim, 1.7% as Hindu, 0.9% as Sikh, 0.5% as Jewish and another 0.5% as Buddhist. This broad range of religious and secular beliefs reflects a diverse and evolving society. Although Starmer's atheism appears to resonate with an increasingly secular population, religion and politics have always been intimate bedfellows.

In truth, they have been bedfellows since the dawn of civilization, with each influencing and shaping the other in ways that continue to reverberate today. Take ancient Greece, for example. Here, the gods were not just celestial beings to be worshipped but active participants in the political arena. Zeus, Athena and Apollo played crucial roles in city-state decisions, with leaders often consulting oracles, such as the famed Oracle of Delphi, before embarking on significant political or military ventures. It was believed that these divine entities had a direct influence on human affairs, guiding leaders to make decisions that would ensure the prosperity of their city-states.

Fast forward to the rise of the Roman Empire, where religion and governance went hand in hand. The emperors themselves were often deified, becoming gods after death, and sometimes even during their lifetimes. This practice bolstered their authority, making their political power seem ordained by the divine. Augustus, the first Roman emperor, cleverly used his status as the son of the deified Julius Caesar to legitimize his rule and establish the Imperial cult, which linked the worship of the emperor with the state religion.

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church became a dominant political force in Europe, wielding power that often rivaled that of kings and emperors. Popes could excommunicate rulers, effectively cutting them off from the divine right to rule, which was considered essential for legitimacy. 

Moving into the Renaissance and Reformation periods, religious belief continued to shape political landscapes. Martin Luther’s “95 Theses,” published in 1517, didn't just spark a religious revolution; the 95 statements also led to significant political upheaval. The Protestant Reformation resulted in wars, the reshaping of national borders, and the weakening of the Catholic Church’s political power, giving rise to more secular forms of governance.

Even in modern times, religion remains a potent political force. In countries like India, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines, where a dominant religious affiliation shapes societal values and political discourse, atheism is often viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Religion plays an integral role in the cultural and political identity of these nations. In India, with its Hindu majority, political leaders often draw on religious symbolism and rhetoric to connect with their constituents. Similarly, in Pakistan, where Islam is deeply embedded in both the social fabric and legal framework, an atheist leader would never gain any political traction. These countries emphasize the inseparability of faith from public life, making secular or atheistic leadership an unthinkable prospect.

The deeply rooted religious identities in these nations create an environment where political legitimacy is closely tied to religious affiliation. Leaders are often expected to embody and promote the dominant religious values, and their policies frequently reflect these principles. 

In contrast, the U.K.'s political environment demonstrates a significant departure from this norm. Over the years, the UK has evolved into a more secular society where religious affiliation plays a less-central role in political identity. Despite this shift, atheist leaders are still a rarity on the global stage. At its core, atheism represents a firm declaration of disbelief in any higher power. This stance is profound, often unsettling or even disturbing for some.

This is why, throughout history, prominent atheist leaders have been few and far between. For instance, François Mitterrand of France and Olof Palme of Sweden were known for their secular views, yet their atheism remained a subtle aspect of their political identities rather than a defining feature. The alignment of religious and political views often serves as a bridge between leaders and their constituents, fostering trust and a sense of shared identity. The few exceptions, such as Mitterrand and Palme, illustrate the challenges of navigating political landscapes where religious beliefs still hold significant sway.

That brings us back to Keir Starmer’s rise as an atheist leader. Is it a superpower or a weakness? In truth, only time will tell. His lack of religious conviction might help him think in a more objective manner, one could argue. Alternatively, it might alienate segments of society still deeply rooted in religious traditions. Ultimately, the success of his tenure will depend on his ability to navigate these complexities.

If he can first and foremost demonstrate his capability as a politician — someone who truly represents the will of the people and addresses their concerns — then his lack of religious beliefs will likely fade into insignificance.

John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist. He covers psychology and social relations. His writing has appeared in places including UnHerd, The US Sun and The Spectator World.