By John Boothman
‘Excitement reaches fever-pitch as polling day nears.’ With all due respect to journalistic creativity, that’s one of the least likely headlines to appear in the JEP, alongside other fantasies such as ‘Civil service slims down to meet budget challenge’ or ‘Government admits folly of hilltop hospital’.
Still, even if our enthusiasm for the upcoming general election is muted, as voters – or prospective voters – we should pay some attention to the choices facing us and the likely aftermath.
Democracy – defined in my dog-eared dictionary as ‘a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them or by officers chosen by them’ – has had a sticky time recently. It is, and always has been, a problematic system which conveniently overlooks the fact that ‘the people’ are not a single holistic entity, but bunches of disputatious groups and individuals each with their own very different hopes and fears. Some are brighter or better informed than others; a few are indeed complete crackpots, yet typically each has an equal right to cast their vote, and each vote has equal weight in determining who takes charge.
When Winston Churchill famously observed that democracy was ‘the worst form of government apart from all the others’, he wasn’t just uttering a witty one-liner. And the going is getting tougher. As Western societies have become more divided – by ethnicity, ideology, age and financial status – elected governments have struggled to reconcile conflicting aims and ideas.
How does Jersey fare in all of this? The answer is that our democracy has serious flaws. But that is a tautology: no democracy is flawless, in the sense that none can be depended on to deliver honest, astute, scrupulous, hardworking and effective leaders and legislators with any degree of consistency. Unfortunately no alternative system – monarchy, aristocracy, kleptocracy, anarchism or despotism – offers anything better. A king or queen may reign wisely, but their offspring could be useless. Barons instead of promoting the interests of the people are more likely to compete with one another in furtherance of their own interests. Kleptocrats enrich themselves at the expense of the state. Anarchy, in the phrase memorably coined by Thomas Hobbes, guarantees that the lives of the people will be ‘nasty, brutish and short’. Benevolent despots seldom stay benevolent for long.
Dedicated democrats like to glorify their preferred model but wearisome experience teaches us not to expect too much. Instead of a glitzy process to identify and reward the brightest and best, perhaps a more realistic approach is to see it as a way of replacing those who haven’t measured up. That in turn suggests that as the moment of decision draws near, we should (in gardening terms) remember this is at least as much about weeding as planting.
Next month’s general election brings with it three important innovations: new electoral constituencies, the removal of Senators elected on an Islandwide poll, and the appearance of three new centre-right political parties. All are designed to re-energise the voting process, by attracting more candidates with more credible manifestos and hence a greater turnout. However, current signs are that none of these changes has made much impact and we again face the tough task of selecting candidates on a case-by-case basis, while resisting the urge to give the whole thing a miss.
We now know that there are 76 candidates for the 37 Deputies’ seats up for grab, a ratio of barely 2:1. (For Constables it’s an even more disappointing 1.4:1.) It would be invidious, and indeed impossible, to identify name by name those who deserve to blossom and flourish, and those who ought to wither and perish, on 22 June.
On past form, most candidates make extravagant promises they have little chance of keeping, and play safe by making anodyne comments on anything contentious. So here are the questions I shall be asking anyone canvassing for one of my four precious votes:
-
Which of your beliefs and pledges distinguish you from your rivals?
-
What have you achieved in your adult life that (a) you are most proud of, (b) best shows your suitability to be a States member?
-
If you were standing for election to the British House of Commons, which party would you want to represent?
-
What has been your biggest failure, and what if anything did you learn from it?
-
Taking everything into consideration, on a scale of 0–10, how would you rate the performance of the outgoing Council of Ministers?
-
Who do you think should be Jersey’s next Chief Minister?
-
How and what will you contribute personally to the successful running of the Island?
-
Higher taxes or lower public spending – faced with a straight choice, which?
-
In 2026, on what criteria do you want your term to be judged?
Only time for a single question? Make it number one. We know (because they keep telling us) that every candidate for election is a compassionate, industrious team-player who believes in American motherhood and apple pie, or their local equivalents. What we want to know about are the things that single them out. Or as the French would say, vive la différence.
How you interpret their answers will, of course, depend on your own political views. But there are some bear-traps to catch out the unwary. For example, anyone who fudges their response to the question about taxation and spending is unlikely to take tough decisions once elected. Asked to choose between British political parties, an ambivalent response – ‘I would not be aligned with any party’ – suggests their political aspirations are not to be taken seriously. (It’s almost impossible for an independent candidate to win a seat at Westminster.) Answering a question you didn’t ask – and failing to answer one you did – is another worrying sign.
For those aspiring to higher office – perhaps to be our next Chief Minister – we should seek – no, insist on – altogether weightier characteristics. Among the hallmarks of an effective leader is the ability to turn fine words into measurable achievements, harnessing the energy and skills of the organisation they lead. This in turn presupposes clarity of vision, articulacy, determination, self-confidence, courage, mental agility, vigour and resilience. These are not, to my way of thinking, qualities that have been much in evidence among recent incumbents.
So here are my killer questions for would-be CMs. What are the three biggest challenges we face? Four years from now in what specific ways, under your leadership, will our Island be a better and happier place than it is now? Why should I believe you? And do you pledge yourself to be judged on your success or failure in achieving those things?
Listen carefully to their answers. Treat waffle and grandstanding with equal suspicion. But however sceptical you may be, and however great the temptation to stay at home on election day, don’t succumb. Across the world, from China and Hong Kong to Myanmar and Belarus, pro-democracy activists risk imprisonment and even death to secure the free electoral choices we take for granted. Not just responsible (and responsive) governments, but a whole raft of rights and liberties spring from our ability to hold politicians to account. A democracy in which half the electorate doesn’t vote is nothing to be proud of.
