It is the latest turn in the long-running reform saga that begun with the publication of the Clothier Report on the machinery of government in 2000. The current proposal for super constituencies was brought by Deputy Andrew Lewis in order, he said, to give the States another chance to endorse the outcome of the referendum which followed the Electoral Commission’s 2013 Report. However, an amendment which had the effect of retaining eight Senators was also passed at that time. Deputy Lewis will attempt on Tuesday to get that overturned. He also points out that the people of Jersey have never been consulted on the new electoral boundaries. It does seem important, if we are to have radically revised constituencies, we should be consulted on where the boundaries are to be drawn. To complicate matters further, although we will have super constituencies, the electoral registers will be kept on the old parish constituency basis.
Are you following this? No? Well, I can’t say I blame you. Ever since Clothier set out the simple recommendation that there should be a single class of States Member, the States Assembly as a whole has been wriggling like a fish hooked on a trot line, pulling in different directions and, in the main, those that suit their own interests. That’s why we’ve had over 60 separate reform propositions and countless amendments over the last 17 years, until those who haven’t been bored into submission are totally confused as to what the position might be after next Tuesday.
Permit me an attempt at clarification. If the proposition (P.18/2017) being put forward by the Privileges and Procedures Committee next Tuesday is passed unamended, when we go to the polls next May there will be three types of constituency to elect three classes of States Member in 19 separate electoral districts; six super constituencies to elect Deputies, 12 parish constituencies to elect Constables and one all-Island constituency to elect Senators. So, not exactly straightforward and not exactly an example of an electoral system that any sane person would dream up.
Even Senator Philip Bailhache, chairman of the former Electoral Commission, when giving evidence to the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel, described the current plan as a dog’s dinner. He then said he would vote in favour of it. Well, it would not be the first time a States Member voted knowingly for a mess.
Indeed, it is such a mess that one hopes a sufficient number of States Members will say enough is enough, stop it, stop it now and put the matter aside until after next year’s election. It’s worth pointing out that the Venice Commission, which established the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, states no change should be made to electoral boundaries within a year of an election.
Much the best way forward would be to park the whole electoral reform agenda until after the 2018 election, and then begin a completely fresh look setting aside the failure of the Electoral Commission to find a solution, and everything that has since flowed from it.
It will always be difficult for politicians to decide their own futures, so a sensible step would be a decision to implement no change until after the election in 2022. That way, change would be far enough away for the self-interest of Members to be a diminishing factor. Another positive step would be, as Clothier recommended, to appoint an independent chief electoral officer with statutory powers to oversee a single electoral register, devise a code of conduct for candidates, and preside over any boundary changes. This is the only way to separate the electoral machinery from the political process.
The electoral reform issue is a vital one, and it was just as vital in 1998 when the States of the day decided to initiate the review into the machinery of government that led to the Clothier Report. All this time later it’s still vital, but not so urgent that we should risk getting it wrong. Next Tuesday’s Proposition represents a retrograde step.
As for what a new electoral system should look like, we would do well to bear in mind that the basic building blocks of a democracy are the people. Any approach should put the people, not their elected representatives, front and centre of all considerations.
