To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
An elected Chief Minister is key to any States reform
Share this:
From Paul de Gruchy.
THE attempt to reform the States goes on. Perhaps it would be a good moment to stop and pause.
Attempts at reform have so far concentrated exclusively on the question of how we elect States Members, with an emphasis on trying to introduce a fairer system. Important, yes, but ultimately of secondary importance.
If the number of States Members was reduced, and St Helier was given more influence than it currently has, things would improve? Not much, if at all. We would have pretty much the same people, carrying out the same roles, in the same way.
The States would still be rudderless, led by a Chief Minister with no popular mandate and owed no loyalty by his ministers. Scrutiny would still struggle to find identity, knowing that its findings are routinely ignored. Difficult but vital areas such as education, health and planning would continue to be regarded as poisoned chalices for politicians with ambition.
The problem with the current system is obvious: nobody is accountable. Nobody can set out a vision and ask for election on the basis of what they will do, as nobody commands a majority in the States.
Instead, individuals are elected on the basis of ‘common sense’, being a ‘team player’, standing for ‘moderation’, and even ‘not being very political’. All very well, but hardly a manifesto.
The only certainty is that with the role of States Member a full-time job, most working people who earn an above average salary – in other words, the managerial and professional classes – will continue to be excluded from the States Chamber.
A parliamentary chamber composed of those without managerial experience or professional expertise, without any coherent policies, and incapable of being held to account will never be effective, no matter how fairly the Members are chosen.
The Island faces many key issues: unprecedented population growth; unprecedented unemployment; a growing welfare bill; a creaking infrastructure; a leading industry under unprecedented international scrutiny; and a widely held perception that most States Members are, at best, incompetent.
What we need, as a matter of urgency, is reform that will allow us to face the future with confidence and a clear direction. As it is, a decision cannot even be taken to allow nightclubs to stay open a little later without a green paper, public consultation – anything other than a politician actually making a decision.
So, what would I suggest? One option would be to have an election for Chief Minister, with candidates putting forward coherent and comprehensive proposals setting out how they would lead the Island.
This election could be followed, a month later, by an election for the States Chamber. The States Members would be elected on the basis that they will critically assist the Chief Minister, but that the policy agenda has been set.
This Chamber could be part-time; aimed at encouraging membership from a wider background than simply the retired, the rich or the inexperienced.
Of course, such a proposal would need some thought. Would the Chief Minister be required to appoint ministers from the States Chamber or would he have a carte blanche? Would States Members be paid? How exactly will checks and balances work to ensure the Chief Minister and the Chamber work together? It may be that some other proposal is better. If so, let’s hear it – the more the merrier.
My point is simple: reform will only be successful if it changes the way the States functions and allows people to elect candidates on the basis of specific policies and then hold them to account on the basis of the implementation and success of those policies.
If reform continues in the current vein, its ambition limited to finding a slightly more equitable way of electing the same people to do the same role, it will fail. Instead, it needs to show ambition and to come up with proposals to change how the States functions, and not simply how we elect its Members.
The problem, of course, is that of the 100,000 people in the Island, only 49 benefit from the current system.
Related