Some people think island-wide voting is the key to solving the difficulties we perceive with the way our States deputies operate. It is not. The answer is more complicated than that.
First ask yourself why the notion is surfacing at all. It is because we now know that the changes to our system of government, which came into effect at the start of the current States term in 2016, are not achieving their purpose.
What was their purpose? It was to replace the system introduced following the last review some fifteen years earlier. In many people’s view that system didn’t last because the review’s findings were not fully implemented. It created the illusion of decisive government while suffering dilution caused by the compromises finally agreed.
The best illustration of this is a symbolic one. The various arms of the States government were called “Departments”, and the head of each was called a “Minister”. Overall, there was a “Chief Minister”. For many this smacked too heavily of executive government and a central cabinet.
In practice the powers conferred under the new system were no stronger than those which operated in the 1990s and earlier, but enough controversies occurred for a fresh review to be ordered.
The outcome which we now have dispensed with “Ministers” and we went back to a system of committees headed by presidents. In an acknowledgement of the problem of indecisiveness, however, a Policy and Resources Committee was created to stand above all other committees in a coordinating and financing role.
We now know that this committee is not as powerful or authoritative as was intended. Where it has tried to intervene with “junior” committees, it has caused political ructions. It turns out that the key to getting things done, now as always, is to build majorities among the assembly’s members. But in an assembly of 40 independent representatives, this is easier said than done.
So let us pause and assume that we have a workable system of island-wide voting (leave aside whether that is achieveable in practice). What are we hoping for with this electoral basis? At least three interlinked objectives are apparent:
- Voters will have a wider choice, and probably of more suitable individuals. All politics is local, it is said, and especially so in our island. Our current arrangements are structured to attract candidates interested in parish-level politics – the douzaine is a classic “recruitment” route into the island’s assembly. As a result talented people more interested in island-wide issues tend not to stand, especially in areas where local personalities dominate. Island-wide voting should help attract such capable people – and deserves to, given that the Big Issues are indeed ‘island wide’. But any candidate will still need to feel that, in terms of achieving serious policy ends and resolving island problems, an individual can make a difference. If on top of this they are “incomers” to the island, their chances of winning may be reduced. So, island-wide voting of itself is unlikely to make a difference for deputies as individuals, at least in the short term.
- Those elected will be more legitimate representatives of the people. This is self-evidently true in a democracy where one is inevitably counting numbers. Winners in a single island-wide constituency with tens of thousands of voters would have to attract more widespread support than is typically the case currently. At present, it is easier to stamp your personality on a small constituency and, in a virtuous circle, you can acquire the profile and experience which helps you win subsequent elections, provided you haven’t blotted your copybook or alienated parishioners on the way. Plainly, the cost of island-wide voting may be an increase in the distance between voters and representatives, but this should be offset by the modern use of social media. Deputies are also more likely to have the interests of the whole island at heart rather than those of their parish, but worries about the decline of the douzaines are misplaced; if anything they were demoted years ago when they lost their direct representation in the assembly. Indeed, there is a strong case today for strengthening the douzaines in respect of certain local parish matters.
- Personality politics will be superceded by policy commitments. Most democracies these days suffer to some degree from personality politics at the most local level, but higher up it is the policy objectives for which you stand that counts. Island-wide voting will by definition shift us away from constituency-level and parish-level pre-occupations. It may also encourage candidates to try to distinguish themselves from the mass of rivals by forming alliances with others. If they do this under common programmes or commitments, you may have candidates saying they are in lists which voters can vote for – the beginnings of party politics. No one likes to talk directly of parties or executive government, but if island-wide voting fosters the formation of formal or informal alliances of individuals with common views, it is a small step to firmer decision-making, coalitions and parties. This might in turn lead to something which looks like party politics, collective responsibility and maybe even executive government. Not everyone agrees that such a form of government is a formula for future prosperity.
Will island-wide voting really promote these objectives? It might. But as an aside, it is worth asking whether there are other ways to encourage talent to participate in politics, give politicians greater legitimacy and promote more decisive government.
Start with the obvious fact: talent is not cheap. So make it worth someone’s while to give up their time, and perhaps their job, to stand for office – especially if, as really ought to be the case, you expect them to give up any other roles to ensure conflicts of interest never arise. We have too many of these as it is. So, give deputies a proper job description at last, and pay them decently.
As for legitimacy, this doesn’t come from representing a whole island rather than a whole parish. It comes from honesty and integrity, or more precisely, a lack of duplicity. There is no denying the recent loss of trust in deputies and officials in most democracies, including Guernsey. A display of more consistent thinking and ambitious thought for the island would help. So would putting individual candidates through more testing hoops in the hustings. The aim must surely be to elect candidates who not only have the island’s interests at the forefront of their minds, but can express in common-sense terms what that actually means.
As for more decisive government, consider the things ordinary mortals expect from those in charge. After defence of the country, the rule of law and the maintenance of order, these include sound macro-economic management, solid public finances, high employment and access to the best possible health and education services.
You won’t be assured of this without workable majorities in the assembly. And you won’t be assured of workable majorities without encouraging coalitions of like-minded interests. This may be happening already: nascent coalitions are certainly apparent. The signs are that, whatever the electoral system, candidates in future will have to do more than visit parishioners on their doorstep and convey a warm personality there or on the hustings.
As to the referendum itself, it is regrettably too late to do anything about this. Deputies couldn’t agree on what form of island-wide voting would work best, and resorted to the precedent-setting mechanism of a so-called ‘referendum’ on no less than five different options. Elected to make choices, they have shown themselves able in some areas to make controversial decisions, but apparently they found this a step too far.
