Five years of promise unfulfilled
Wednesday 26th May 2010, 3:00PM BST.
THE conclusion that Jersey’s five-year-old system of ministerial government is not working as well as it should will have surprised few, if any, outside the small group of ministers and senior civil servants who control its centralised powers.
Even in that charmed circle, there is some acknowledgment that the much-vaunted new ‘machinery of government’ has failed to live up to the optimistic promises made about it. Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur himself has admitted in the past that improvements could be made to a system that was introduced to replace a time-honoured committee structure dismissed as too slow and inefficient for the modern era.
A more frank and damning assessment has now been delivered by a sub-committee of Privileges and Procedures, the body charged with organising States Members (as far as such a thing is possible).
Their report paints a convincing picture of a divisive system which leaves many Members feeling unable to influence events, to gain access to official information or, in short, to have a fair chance of representing the public who elected them.
With a wider brief, the sub-committee might equally truthfully have pointed out that, far from ushering in a new age of efficiency and political responsiveness, the five years of ministerial government have seen States spending and payrolls grow, taxes rise and the quality of public services diminish, while the taxpaying electorate have felt steadily more disillusioned and disenfranchised by the effectively unstoppable application of executive power.
The system of government is, of course, not entirely to blame. The declining general calibre of Island politicians has played a major part too, as have some economic circumstances beyond local control. However, there is no doubt that the sub-committee’s recommendation for a major review of how the system is, or is not, working is one that must now be acted upon with determination and honesty.
Part of the trouble with ministerial government is that, despite the pomp and paraphenalia which attended its long gestation, it is essentially an off-the-peg version of local government structures also introduced throughout the UK, where cabinets, scrutiny panels and ever-stronger bureaucracies have become the uninspiring norm in many administrative areas. Unlike the States of Jersey, though, those councils at least have the democratic safeguards of party politics and freedom of information legislation to underpin the whole process.
It is at heart an English system shoehorned uncomfortably onto a community whose sense of identity rests crucially on not being English and which for many decades has been more used to doing things in its own idiosyncratic, but undeniably successful, fashion. The committee system, involving all States Members in government and pooling wisdom towards a more subtle consensus than the new system allows, may not have been perfect but nor, very clearly, is its successor. It is time to think again.
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
JOIN US ON...
Facebook and Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Got a story? Get in touch
KIT 4 CLUBS
Win a share of £10,000
2012 is the year of the London Olympics and to celebrate this great event the Jersey Evening Post, in association with sponsors Ogier is giving all sporting clubs a chance to win a share of £10,000.
It is more the case that the island has endured five years of failure and muddle bought on by members of the house putting their vested interests above the interests of the island.
The House of Commons has shown that it can reform itself, why not the States of Jersey?
The fact is that they continue to confirm what many islanders know, the majority of members have not got a shred of decency or honour between them!
Report abuse
1 Pip – The problem, imho, is not so much a lack of decency or honour – many States Members, with suitable supervision, would make fairly reliable milk monitors – as the lack of two brain cells to rub together
But then, if people will keep voting in characters who so obviously have an IQ lower than their age, what do you expect?
Would-be politicians should at least be first required to pass a test in the three Rs – the standard of debate and decision-making would instantly shoot up.
Report abuse
There are a few States members who are obviously of below average intelligence but I would say most of them are of around average intelligence and there are a few that are very intelligent indeed.
Intelligence is not the only quality needed in a politician, a bit of low cunning and an ability to know when to fight is worth a lot of paper qualifications.
Gaining office requires an ability to relate to the electors who are the ones who are going to put you there and to do the case work to keep them happy when you are in office.
A political vision or principles are also needed, there is not much point in being elected if all you are going to be is a yes person who will be pushed around by other more assertive members.
Report abuse
I only wish I could agree with Pip, about the value, to a politician, of vision and principles. Unfortunately, history shows that the way to get elected, is to say what people want to hear (whether or not it makes sense, or represents something achievable); and the way to keep getting re-elected, is to avoid doing anything which might upset anyone, i.e. to avoid doing anything of any significance. Many politicians have no qualms about upsetting other politicians – but they are still ‘yes-men’, because they would rather eat sawdust than risk upsetting a single voter. This crawling, craven approach does indeed require a certain amount of low cunning, as possessed by many current and wannabee States Members – but I’m not sure how compatible that quality is with decency and honour.
Of course intelligence is not the only attribute of the ideal politician (from the electors’ perspective); but it might help the community if candidates were demonstrably not thick. Good decision-making (rather than playing to the gallery) does, after all, require an ability to absorb and analyse information, and a politician needs to be able to express him/herself clearly, if he/she hopes to persuade others.
Report abuse
It is probably best not to look at the States to find shining examples of politicians as they are not exactly of the highest calibre despite what some of them think.
If you want a great twentieth politician look at Denis Healey. A good and honourable man he gained a double first from Oxford and then rose from the ranks to the rank of Major during the Second World War fighting in many theatres.
His bluff good manner hid an inner steel that made him a beachmaster at Anzio. His job was to get the men off the landing craft, charge up a mined beach and then engage the enemy.
He was offered the rank of Lieutenant Colonel at the end of the war to persuade him to remain in the army but he declined it to enter politics.
He held many great offices of state and fought many battles on principal both within his party and with his opponents.
Parts of the hard left despised him but he was widely admired on both sides of the House for his politics, his kind nature and his debating style.
One of the things I most admire him was that he managed to be a patriot without being a nationalist.
He was a good campaigner who genuinely liked voters and could be friendly without being ingratiating.
He upset a few constituents in his time but a lot of them admired his principled stand and voted for him anyway.
If you do not like Labour politicians I can think of a few Liberals and Conservatives that I like and admire but I doubt the States will see any that could even stand level with their knees!
Report abuse