The 1948 Constitution crumbles
The question has to be asked.
Exactly why was the Chief Minister giving evidence to the Electoral Commission
out of Season just before the holidays? The especially arranged meeting, called
on one day’s notice, without the Chief Minister having made a written
submission, was all together rather peculiar.
One can only speculate, but
perhaps all is not going well with the “well laid plans” of the Electoral
Commission for a coup d’etat on States
reform. The written submissions on the web site are displaying a marked
unanimity that it is time for the Constables to go. Reform Jersey had a
very successful meeting in the Town Hall and has taken the moral high ground
with its emphasis on democratic concerns
It may also be that some of the
members of the Commission are thinking a little too independently and perhaps
even a little too democratically. Like Napoleon at Waterloo,
sending in the Old Guard to save the day, the Chairman of the Commission had to
call in the Chief Minister in order to discipline other members and set out the
party line.
Clothier
The Clothier Report of 2000 had
justifiably condemned the 1948 constitutional arrangement as no longer fit for
purpose in a democratic age. It also offered a viable political alternative.
Reform without dramatic change a la mode
anglaise.
Clothier proposed a simple and
logical solution. The States would be reformed with the creation of one
category of member, all elected on the same day and in large constituencies of
equal population. Senators and Constables would go.
Ten years later and there has
been little progress. Clothier was and remains anathema to entrenched vested
interests, traditionalists and the forces of conservatism. The Chief Minister
did allude to vested interest being a barrier to any form of change.
The forces of conservatism are
preparing a last rearguard battle to secure their position in the hope of
hanging on for another few decades. Time is running out as the crisis has
arrived in Jersey and the public mood is growing
impatient with intransigent attitudes.
Arrangements that delivered
stability and continuity immediately after the Second World War, entrenching
power in the hands of the new business elite fearful of popular discontent
built up during the Occupation, are no longer tenable in an age of Human
Rights. Hanging on to the old ways is no longer acceptable or viable.
What currently exists is
illogical; the accretion of history, now unpruned and grown rank.
A second Chamber? – “knowledge, expertise and wisdom”
The Chief Minister, Senator Ian
Gorst clearly had not thought through the mechanics of what he was there to
propose. Clothier has a certain beauty because its proposals are simple and
logical. What we heard from the Chief Minister were suggestions that on their
own might be plausible, but taken together were contradictory and unworkable.
Defense of the status quo is hard
when what is being defended is not properly analysed or comprehended. Many of
the written submissions to the Commission suffer from the absence of any real
grasp of the current system of government. Much of what is written is more a
hankering for the past when there was no dissent or conflict and the economy
was buoyant.
Senators in a Senate – elected or appointed?
One of the themes being pushed
today was that there should be a second chamber. A bi-cameral system would
solve in one fell swoop the problem of what to do with the Senators, if they
cannot be abolished. The answer is to stick them in an upper house.
Putting the Constables in the
upper house was touched upon, but not really embraced. The thought itself is
bizarre given the impracticalities of country bumpkins scrutinizing complex
financial legislation of which they knew nothing and cared little. Their
primary function in the States is to push the button and vote the way that
supports the government.
The Chief Minister then
introduced a new theme to the debate on an upper house. Should these new Senators
be elected or appointed? For conservatives the idea of appointment has an
innate attraction. The practical problem is that who would appoint them? There
was no answer to that issue and inevitable fears of political patronage.
Furthermore, appointment would do away with the “all island mandate” which so
many appear to favour. It’s not possible to elect Senators and appoint them at
the same time.
A second chamber is by its very
nature “aristocratic”, the very antithesis of democratic. To then propose that
these Senators could be appointed speaks volumes about the undemocratic
thinking behind the scheme. Senators are loved, we are told, because of their
all island mandate. That is to say they are chosen by the electorate throughout
the island and have as their legitimacy thousands of votes. So, what crazy idea
is it to start appointing and removing the democratic aspect of an election?
The Chief Minister would not be
drawn on the point of election or appointment; he left it open. Clearly this is
what the Chairman of the Commission is thinking and explains why he went on
holiday to Barbados,
which has such a bi-cameral system. Quite why such coyness is not clear since
the Chief Minister was there to express opinion. Indeed so much of what he said
was with reservations, partly no doubt not to pre-empt the findings of the
Electoral Commission, which as we all know are pretty much decided. Perhaps
today’s appearance was to give benediction to the predictable outcome.
Second chambers are also
notorious for generating conflict with the lower Assembly. One can well imagine
further paralysis and delay in a States noted for its indecisiveness over
contentious matters.
The end of Scrutiny
It was not entirely clear from
the Chief Ministers evidence, but he seemed to imply that the new Senate would
take over the role of the current Scrutiny. The new Senators would presumably
play no role in the Executive, but this was not clear.
Deputies and Super Constituencies
Having put Senators in a Senate,
the position of Deputies became clearer. Reduction in the size of the States
could be achieved by reducing the number of Deputies and electing those that
remain in new large constituencies that need not follow parish boundaries.
Reducing the number of Deputies
is a mechanism for removing dissent or eliminating those elected in urban
constituencies and expressing the interests of the popular classes in general.
Basically it’s a way to get rid of what the right see as “the lefties”.
The idea of larger constituencies
was designed to deal with the so called “democratic deficit” or the disparity
in Senators being elected with thousands of votes, whilst Deputies can get
elected with a few hundred votes, given low turnout at elections. Larger
constituencies would end tiny parish constituencies and, presumably, give
Deputies a greater legitimacy.
The logic of legitimacy from
large number of votes was not extended by the Chief Minister to Constables in
their parishes, nor to the fact that 8 out of 12 at the last election did not
face a contested election - uncontested elections being a common phenomena in
Constables elections.
Senators would be elected island
wide or even appointed; fewer Deputies in new constituencies and Constables in
their parishes. Clear but confusing and certainly not democratic or any real
advance of what exists.
Independent boundary commission
Ed Sallis, one of the more
democratically minded of the “lay” member on the Commission, bowled the Chief Minister
a bit of a googely by asking if there should be an independent boundary
commission to determine these new Deputy constituencies. Back came the answer
“God, not if we can avoid it” said Gorst. Once again there was hesitancy over a suggestion with democratic implications.
Needless to say there was no
discussion of the over representation of the Country parishes, each with its own
Constable.
Holy cows and Constables
The Chief Minister recognised
that the position of Constable was what he described as “the most divisive
office”. His own official position was made clear when he told us parishes are
the very bed rock of Jersey society; the Constables a
vital link between the parish system and central government. This is
traditionalist ideological pap. Whether the Chief Minister really believes this
stuff was ambiguous. It is certainly realpolitik.
He is surrounded by so many traditionalists that there is no space for a
democratic moderniser, not that he is one. However what he is defending was
condemned long ago, just like Sark’s feudalism.
An Englishman rooted in Jersey soil
It is sad to see that the Chief Minister
has no clear thoughts on reform of the States Assembly and electoral system.
Without Executive support the type of reforms that are essential cannot be
implemented. Instead the crisis will deepen.
There was no understanding that
the electorate cannot structure the States and has no policy choice. “Is a
single election day more about turnout?” mused the Chief Minister, oblivious to
the crisis of legitimacy that a 60% voter abstention represents. Of course a
single election day is already agreed for 2014, so how exactly can anyone dream
of going back to the bad old ways of staggered elections?
The Chief Minister in his own
mind understands the issues and contradiction. He alluded to Clothier having
succinctly analysed the problem, but could not admit that its proposals are the
only sensible solution. He is an Englishman rooted in Jersey
soil and the local prejudices are hard to overcome. The elite do not want
change. They cannot admit there is a problem. They will hang on to the bitter
end and it is ordinary citizens of Jersey that will
suffer in the meantime.
Party Line.
It will be interesting to see
what the official media make of this morning’s events. They will be looking for
the correct stear to communicate to the population. The JEP and CTV
both sent journalists. Will they have been as confused and bemused as were
citizen’s media and most of the public in the audience?
Predictable
If the Chief Minister achieved anything yesterday it was to
confirm that there will be no significant democratic breakthrough. The
Electoral Commission will come up with a scheme that is basically Plan
Bailhache; the one expected all along. Quite how this will be translated into a
clear referendum for the public to give a clear answer is virtually impossible.
Illogical and undemocratic schemes are inherently untenable.
The next task is to expose in the eyes of the public how unsatisfactory
are the so called reforms being planned by the Electoral Commission and Chief
Minister. The demand must remain for real democratic reforms to the States
Assembly and electoral system. Clothier has set them out already.
