By John Henwood
“DEMOCRACY is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” Winston Churchill was entitled to feel a touch bitter when making that statement; he had just been voted out of office after leading Britain through the Second World War. Perhaps benign dictatorship would be better. One imagines a sort of Father Christmas figure, white bearded and full of wisdom, bestowing with kindness the rules by which we would live in harmony. It’s a dream. The term “benign dictator” is an oxymoron.
Perhaps the closest one gets is Lee Kuan Yeu and Singapore. Well, no, Lee was elected into office. The notion of his rule as that of dictator springs from his longevity in power – he was leader for over 30 years – and the force of his personality.
His own view of democracy is interesting: “The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conditions which are inimical to development,” he said.
Nevertheless, he was returned to successive terms as Singapore’s Prime Minister from 1959 to 1990, after which he continued to be re-elected to various offices of state until he retired in 2011, aged 88. It has justly been said he was the father of modern Singapore. Sadly, as political leaders go, Lee was unique.
That mini essay is all to introduce the issue of democracy here. Frequent correspondents to this newspaper will refer to a lack of it, apparently not understanding that it simply means rule by the people, or those of us who bother, once every four years, to choose representatives to serve in the States and take decisions on our behalf. That said, I do understand why some may consider we have a democratic deficit.
In an attempt to create more interest in the local democratic process, someone had the idea for the People’s Debate. Islanders were invited to apply to take part in a topical debate in the States Chamber; to add gravitas and a sense of being a States Member the Bailiff would preside as the Assembly debated and voted on a controversial proposition.
Twenty-five years ago I was appointed by the States to be part of the review panel on the machinery of government (aka Clothier). The panel spent 20 months listening to views, many expressing dissatisfaction with both government and the whole system of selecting States Members. Since that time, one has tried to support measures to improve our system and general understanding of it.
So, this People’s Debate appearing to be a useful initiative, I put my name into the hat never expecting to be selected. After all, judging by the amount of negativity expressed by so many I expected scores of people to come forward, bursting for the chance to be a States Member for a day and show how it should be done.
An interview followed. Far from being a daunting experience, the interviewers were much more interested in listening than grilling. To my surprise I was told that there were fewer applicants than seats in the Assembly and I had a good chance of being selected. And I was.
Comprehensive briefing notes followed and a meeting for a further briefing in the States Chamber was held. Two things were immediately evident: a lack of gender balance and several empty seats, many identifying those selected, but who for some reason did not turn up. The former, we were assured, accurately reflected the list of applicants.
The objective was to make the experience as close as possible to a proper States sitting. Both the Bailiff and the Greffier were infinitely patient in explaining the procedure and answering questions. After an hour and even more questions dealt with, we were asked to return on 28 September, when we would have a debate for real.
We would discuss this proposition: “The People’s Debate is asked to decide whether it is of the opinion that: Jersey should lead the way in the global fight against climate change, and accelerate its own efforts, by committing to achieving net-zero emissions by 2040 and that, in order to deliver this –
-
The standard rate of income tax should be raised by 1% in order to support households which currently use fossil fuels for heating, cooling or cooking to convert to low-carbon equivalents;
-
Bus-only lanes should be created at peak traffic hours on key routes into Town, with the remaining lanes (in which traffic flow is to be managed by traffic lights) for use by cars; and
-
A congestion charge should be introduced for non-residents using non-electric vehicles in Town, with any funds raised to be transferred to the Climate Emergency Fund in order to support improvements to active travel and public transport networks.
I anticipated a verbal punch up between those holding extreme and opposite views. We assembled at the duly appointed time, took our places and it was immediately evident that some who had not come to the briefing had decided to swerve the opportunity altogether. Why apply, go through an interview, be accepted and then not bother to show up? This was first-hand evidence of the apathy the initiative was trying to overcome. There are 49 elected States Members; we were just 34.
All 34 people spoke in the debate, one leaving after speaking, and there were strongly held views, but everyone was courteous and there were far fewer examples of repetition than are frequently heard during States meetings and a good deal of common sense evident on both sides. Here are some snippets from the various speeches:
-
“None of the doomsday predictions of the last 50 years have been realised.”
-
“Taxing people will not change the weather.”
-
“We can lead the way and set an example – increase taxation on users of fossil fuel.”l“Show the world a small island can have a big impact.”
-
“The private sector is better than government at making progress – never give the government more money or power.”
-
“Target solutions – incentives rather than punitive measures.” (The carrot rather than stick approach by government was a recurring theme during the debate.)
-
“The public transport system is not fit for our needs.”
-
“The science is established – climate [change] deniers are crackpots.”
-
“Don’t believe ‘we are doing all this to save you’.”
-
“Why are we only looking at climate measures? Focus on what’s right for us.”
-
“Planning should permit double glazing on listed buildings.”
-
“We can’t afford to spend hundreds of millions for no significant global benefit, nor will the world notice if we do.”
-
“Climate change is a scientific fact; we need to address the issue, but not with these proposals.”
-
“We must focus on where we agree, focus on things that make a difference; we need more public debate.”
After the debate came the voting: on the principal proposal the vote was 15 for, 15 against, with three abstentions. The Bailiff ruled the proposition was lost. On a) increase income tax by 1%, it was one in favour, 30 against and two abstentions. On b) introduce bus lanes, the vote was 11 in favour, 19 against and three abstentions. And on c) a congestion charge four were in favour, 28 against and one abstention.
On this outcome, it seems highly unlikely that any real States Member will be bringing this proposition to the Assembly.
Perhaps some of those taking part will become candidates at the next election. As I told the Assembly during the briefing, I would not be a candidate – too old and temperamentally unsuited. Even if our exercise did not encourage participants to stand, today’s States Members could learn something about conduct during a debate and it wouldn’t be a bad idea if they restricted themselves to four-minute speeches, as we were required to do. Whether the exercise created enough interest to stimulate more public engagement I’m not sure – there was little media coverage – but it was a worthwhile attempt and one that might bear repeating, perhaps with some invited participants.
-
Born and educated in Jersey, John Henwood decided work was not the best way to spend his time, so he went into television. By 1998 it seems he had done just enough to catch the eye of whoever decides these things and was appointed MBE for services to broadcasting and the community. Ever since then he has been trying to justify the award.
