THE Harbourmaster, Howard Le Cornu, has minimised the importance of the recent meeting about St Helier’s Old Harbour on the grounds that its was not representative of the views of a majority of Island boat owners.

That could be the case, but it is pertinent to wonder what the official view would be even if every single member of the boating fraternity signed a petition saying that the present mud berths should be left exactly as they are.

Like it or not, public opinion in this Island appears to be counting for less and less as the era of ministerial rule progresses – if that is the right word. In spite of senior politicians’ avowed desire to ‘reconnect’ with the electorate and their enthusiasm for consultation exercises, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that what the people think is very much a
secondary issue.

It would of course be in no one’s interest for government to follow slavishly every expressed wish of those who vote them into power. We elect representatives, not delegates, and we expect those who sit in the States Assembly to use their intelligence and experience to produce policies that are in the best interests of the Island as a whole.

However, even if we require our politicians to avoid crass populism, we should very much like them to listen and factor public views into their consideration of issues great and small. Sadly, evidence suggests that although lip-service is paid to the idea of taking the soundings, civil servants and their political masters are so often carried away by the beauty of their own ideas that deviation from plans formulated behind closed doors is seldom likely.

The scheme to transform the Old Harbour may prove to be a case in point, but other examples of the primacy of official policy over the popular line are not hard to identify. Pressure for the Millennium Town Park (which is surely overdue for rechristening), public meetings resolutely opposed to the development of the Plémont headland and mass protest against the introduction of GST have all given the impression of bypassing official attention.

Meanwhile, A Line in the Sand, the National Trust’s campaign to preserve the coastline from further development, may yet pay dividends, but it, too, might simply be brushed aside in the interests of expediency.

It would be wrong to suggest that the public voice always represents reason and good sense. It does not. It must, however, be taken seriously, and democratic governments do themselves no good whatsoever if they are seen to be deaf to all ideas that are not their own.