SOMETIMES I think that I would like to be Chief Minister.

I thought about it last week when I was listening to the States debating the Business Plan. There were plenty of brickbats and not many bouquets for the Chief Minister and his colleagues on the Council of Ministers. They lack foresight, they don’t plan long term, they break their promises and generally they are not doing what backbenchers want them to do.

The Chief Minister took it all in his stride and maintained his usual courteous stance. That was when I wanted to be Chief Minister.

I would have told the honourable States Members that had I not had to sit listening to their drivel for a week, I could have got on and done some real work, trying to tackle the very real problems facing the Island. Instead, I had to listen to an enormous number of half-baked ideas and totally inaccurate information meant to support individual members’ pet subjects.

They didn’t talk total drivel, of course – just about 95% of it – so I guess we have to be grateful. But if there was anything to illustrate how the States is not fit for purpose, it was the Business Plan debate.

So what can we do about a totally dysfunctional States Assembly? Well not a lot, unfortunately.

You could get rid of the Constables, who have no business being in the Island’s legislature. You could even get rid of the division between Senators and Deputies and you could hold a general election on one day, based on equal constituencies.

But you would still be left with 50 or so individuals all with their own agendas, their own policies, their own aims and their own way of doing things. That ranges from some members who carefully consider and research issues, to those who try to make policy on the hoof with little or no forethought. Often the issues are far too complex for individual members to research properly, particularly as there is no support for them, but that doesn’t stop them speaking as though they were experts.

Some members would even continue to treat the States as though it was some kind of glorified debating club. They proudly stand up and tell the House that they haven’t made up their minds yet and are waiting to be swayed by someone making a good debating point. Is that really what the electorate expects of their representatives?

Now the way the States goes about its business may all be very democratic but it’s no way to run a country.

This quaint political system, which applies in very few jurisdictions outside the Channel Islands, is not only inefficient but is also prone to many dangers. For example, it’s a system that encourages mavericks to run wild.

Now every parliament has its mavericks and there might even be a place for one or two, but we’re in danger of having a parliamentary majority of them. There is no discipline other than the very broad rules applied to all members of the States Assembly, and there’s certainly no self-discipline.

Some might say that these problems stem from not having accepted all of the recommendations of the Clothier inquiry. Personally I think the Clothier panel totally missed the point. This is even reflected in the term ‘machinery of government’ which was extensively used by Clothier.

We don’t need engineers. It’s not about machinery. It’s about beliefs, policies and even passion. That’s what gets the public engaged and interested. They don’t want to just be able to vote for a jolly nice fellow who has worked his way up through the honorary system, or even a leader of the Jersey Democratic Alliance. They want to vote for candidates who have policies with which they agree and, most importantly, have a cat’s chance in hell of getting them introduced. The current system of government doesn’t offer this to the electorate.

Yes, I’m afraid the conclusion is that party politics is the only way forward. That’s because it’s the only way in which the electorate has a chance of influencing policies and, also very importantly, being able to hold someone to account for adopting the wrong policies. At present there is no accountability in government, however much we try to claim otherwise. You only need to refer to last week’s debate on the town park. Who could be held responsible for delays in bringing it forward? No one.

Now I’m not so naïve as to believe that we can introduce a party political system by law, or by exerting pressure. It has to grow naturally.

But what we can do is stop believing that party politics is in some way un-Jersey and totally anathema to the way the Island likes to do things.

Party politics, with all its faults, is simply a convenient way in which democracies develop and adopt policies supported by the majority of people. It ensures that elected representatives can get together with other like-minded people to make things happen. Sure, it’s not been the Jersey way to ‘make things happen’, but it’s time it was.

Some of our political leaders might well think that they can change the world on their own, without the help of a party. But they can’t, particularly when they can’t even count on the support of their own colleagues in the Council of Ministers.

So why is it that party politics is good enough for virtually every other democracy, but it’s not appropriate for Jersey? It may not be the Jersey way, but it works, and the Jersey way doesn’t.

Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine