Two things are becoming clear from the Electoral Commission
hearings; firstly the lay panel members are far from being placemen and secondly
the public remain ill informed about the composition of the States Assembly and
electoral system.
Town Hall hearings
The third public hearing occurred yesterday in the Town Hall
at 10am, when four witnesses gave
evidence. There was a separate hearing for one female witness at 5pm. The
Commission is to be praised for accommodating someone whose only availability
was after work.
I was aware of the hearings being held this Monday but could
not find the start time on the Commission website. It took an email and a very
rapid reply from the Greffier of the States to advise it was about to begin at 10am. Realising I had two minutes to get to the
Town Hall, I pulled on my shoes and shot off on the bicycle. When I checked
later in the day a notice with timings had indeed appeared under the NEWS
section.
A full house - Placemen and Democrats.
Commission member Dr. Jonathan Renouf made his first
appearance, making it the first occasion all members had been present at a
hearing. He proved his worth along with Professor Ed Sallis and Colin Storm, gently
teasing out aspects of the “democratic deficit” in the current structure.
Given the concerns about independence for the Commission
from the outset, in having States Members on board, it is reassuring to note
that the lay members are far from being placemen. One hopes that during private
session and in drafting the final report, their evident concerns about
democratic issues are reflected.
Deficiencies in the
electoral system
The electoral system is not part of the terms of reference of
the Commission, however witnesses have raised issues in their written
submissions and orally. There has been discussion of the single transferable
vote and other mechanisms to indicate voter preference, since the first past
the post system and equal weighting for every vote cast, creates distortions. The
public is clearly flagging up issues of equality and fairness in all aspects of
the process as well as structure.
The absence of the electoral and voting system from the
final terms of reference derives, one suspects, from the desire not to address
the “democratic deficit” and issue of voter abstention. A 60% voter abstention
makes Jersey one of the highest amongst democratic
countries. The low 40% turnout at elections raises serious questions of
legitimacy for those elected. That is perhaps a little too embarrassing and
hence the concentration on the structure of the Assembly.
To remind readers, the terms of reference are restricted to:
- Classes of States member;
- Constituencies and mandates;
- Number of States members;
- Terms of office;
- and all other issues arising in the course of the work of the Commission which are relevant to the needs stated above.
Town and Country
divide – new wine in old bottles
The historical divide between Town and Country is throwing
up disparities and highlighting inequalities. The contrast is ever between the
Parish of St Mary with a population of 1752, a Constable and a Deputy, while St
Helier has 10 Deputies, a Constable and 33,532 residents. To
achieve the same level of representation St Helier would
require 38 representatives in the States! No one is suggesting this, but it
illustrates the problem starkly.
In the past the dominance of the Country Parishes
represented the influence of landed property and the farming interest, over the
interests of commerce in the Town. The history of that epic economic and
political struggle is well recorded in Dr John Kelleher’s book “The Triumph of the Country”.
Now that farmers have been replaced with bankers, lawyers, accountants
and the well healed, that divide has taken a new form. New wine has been poured
into old bottles. The Country is where the wealthy live, while in the Town of St
Helier and the “urban” parishes, live the poor and
middle classes. The disparities in the electoral system have never been
addressed precisely because it achieves the dominance of the interests of the
wealthy. It is a form of gerrymandering. Those in St Helier and
the urban areas are denied equal representation in government.
A dearth of
information
Speaking to one witness yesterday highlighted the absence of
information provided by the Electoral Commission which the public can use to inform
themselves and make a credible submission. There is a lot of frustration with
the existing system in its evident failure to deliver but little clear analysis
of the core issues and how it has come about. There is a manifest desire to
make improvements, however some of the schemes are Byzantine and unworkable,
loosing sight of democratic principles. Those that contribute do so with good
intentions but are handicapped by not being well informed. The Commission has
not provided any tools of analysis and it is highly unlikely the final report
will be an extensive discourse of political science.
I have mentioned in earlier posts of the romaticised views
expressed about Constables and the Parish. Some present an idyllic harmonious
community, divested of issues such as the provision of welfare and shelter for
the poor.
The Commission has been particularly criticised for not
carrying out research into the contribution of Constables in the Assembly;
their engagement in Scrutiny, questions to Ministers and participation in debates.
This has been part of an ORGANISED campaign and its success is evident by the
number of contributors making submissions using the template request. The campaign
has been conducted via the internet, in part on Facebook and a number of Jersey
blogs. Senator Bailhache, the Chairman, alluded to the requests which the Commission
had decided to ignore.
Were the public better informed they might be less romantic
about Constables. Just a couple of examples could suffice, such as the fact
that in eight of the twelve parishes there was no contested election for
Constable in 2011, whilst the one that occurred in St Ouen was the first in
108 years.
The times they are a’changin – NOT in the Country Parishes at least.
"Two things are becoming clear from the Electoral Commission hearings; firstly the lay panel members are far from being placemen and secondly the public remain ill informed about the composition of the States Assembly and electoral system."
ReplyDeleteThe third thing that's become clear is that these public hearings are timed to take place when the general public are least likely to be able to attend.
I'd be very interested to know who decides the times.
Fair comment, but the transcripts will be published of witness interviews and some bloggers have been attending to follow events. The EC did, as I mentioned, arrange a 5pm hearing for one person who otherwise would have been at work.
ReplyDeleteThe media will only turn up when there are "big hitters", not when its only le meûne peuple. That said BBC Radio Jersey attended this hearing and interviewed two 25 year old contributors.
I don't know why you even bother and how many times have to failed to get in, must be as many times as hopeless Gino....
ReplyDeleteI equally cannot imagine why you bother to leave such inane comments.
DeleteI continue in the hope that one day you and the other slaves may be free.