Democracy Rally Press Release.

PRESS RELEASE
'Democracy Rally'


Deputy Montfort Tadier has said that, now more than ever, Democracy in Jersey is under threat and is asking for all people across the island, and across the political divide, who value and expect the basic values of honesty, accountability and good governance in politics to take to the streets to support Sunday's protest at the handling St Helier's Esplanade Development.

The St Brelade deputy, who is now serving his third term, said,  'On Tuesday this week in the States, the Council of Ministers hit a new low point and their use of political spin is now unprecedented to the point where it is simply insulting the public's intelligence. There was a clear rush to sign a tenant before the Scrutiny Panel have been allowed to report back with their findings. In their haste, SoJDC and their Ministerial puppets have reneged on repeated assurances that the building work would not start unless 200,000 sq ft had been taken up; to say that this undertaking was a 'mistake', which they only realised this week, must not be believed. If and when the situation changed, it was incumbent on the Treasury Minister, as the shareholder representative, to come back to the States to let the Assembly know. This never happened, at it is now time for the Treasury Minister to consider his position.'

'We also learnt, on Tuesday, that there was an attempt by SoJDC to have the Scrutiny Panel sign an unusual non-disclosure agreement, which would have made them personally and financially liable if information had been leaked. This is nothing short of scandalous. Not only did such game playing have the effect of delaying their work, it also sought to undermine the Parliamentary Privilege of elected members to carry out their work effectively - scrutiny is a democratic function of the States Assembly, and adds value to the public by ensuring good decision making.

Speaking on Sunday's event, Deputy Tadier says that he was initially skeptical about the event: "I am not opposed to development, per se - although I do think there may be better social and cultural uses for the site. What I have always believed, is that we should not be rail-roaded into a development whose funding - whatever the Treasury Minister says - IS  ultimately underwritten by the public. We should have waited for scrutiny to report back and SoJDC should have also waited for this. What has happened is the exact opposite.'

'On Sunday, we have a choice: we can stay at home an let the principles of democracy, accountability and honesty be further eroded, or we can stand up together and say that we believe our government has lost its way and that it needs to do better. For my part, I know where I will be on Sunday afternoon.'

A workable compromise?

I have just read that the Electoral Commission are to release an interim report at 10:00 am tomorrow, Monday 22nd.  There is of course some speculation about its contents.  Most expect it to retain the constables, and probably restore the number of senators back to 12.

Regardless of my personal preferences, I have pondered what sort of compromise might be possible that would produce meaningful change, but preserve as much of the current system as is practical.  In essence I am considering what might be a workable rather than desirable.

The big tension is between those who would have a single class of member, compatible with the various human rights conventions that apply as to the comparability of constituency sizes, equality of representation etc, and those who would preserve much of the current system. I cannot see how these obligations can be met by having multiple  types of full assembly member based on different constituencies. In fact it is hard to see how they can be met even using parish boundaries as the populations of parishes vary so much,except perhaps having constituencies the size of St Mary, each wholly within a parish.  That would mean 1600 population each, requiring an assembly of 60 to represent 96,000 population.  I am of course assuming the parish boundaries are not to be redefined by the Electoral Commission!  Any system that moves away from parish based representation is going to be perceived as undermining or diminishing the parish system . I do not believe the population will accept that, and I am sure the Electoral Commission will seek to avoid proposing anything that looks like that.
  
If the principal concern for those who would retain the constables in the States is that the parish system be not undermined or diminished, and we cannot have parish boundaries with equal representation, then the Electoral Commission needs to have a specific and ideally unique and central role for the heads of the  parishes to reinforce that parish role while permitting other changes to happen.

As it happens we already have non-members of the States participating in the wider machinery of government , as required by the composition of the Public Accounts Committee, part of scrutiny.  Using this as a precedent, it is possible to derive a partial solution that might be tolerable.  The pragmatic issue here is that the connetables would not be full States member, but would have rights and responsibilities in the States assembly and wider machinery of government:

Connetables to chair scrutiny panels and committees and be responsible for running scrutiny.  This single change would ensure parishes would be able to challenge and propose amendments to any proposals  coming from the assembly. It also creates a mechanism for parishes to produce reports to the assembly on matters of concern to them.

Connetables to have right of audience in the assembly. Simply they can speak up on matters of importance, especially as it affects their parish.

Connetables cannot vote in the assembly.

Connetables able to bring propositions and amendments to the States, but only as directed by a parish assembly.  This means the mechanism of the requete is still in place.

Connetables would not be eligible to be ministers  or  assistant ministers.  This is both a practical move for avoiding the conflict of being parish head, and minister , but also logically follows from being expected to take active part in scrutiny.

Constable not permitted to stand separately as a States member.  That would  undermine the separation of roles this compromise tries to bring about.


Ideal it most certainly is not.  It is a sort of substitute for having a second chamber, but avoids the questions that inevitably arise in that situation of supremacy and who has the superior democratic mandate.  Also it does not address the other changes that may be made such as super constituencies, all island senators,etc.  However I see the position of connetables as the major issue that has to be resolved. Without agreement on dealing with the constables, no proposition is likely to make progress.  We will be back to the same errors as implementing Clothier

Democracy and Trust

We have known for some time there is a deep flaw in our politics in Jersey. Turnouts on our main election day get to 40 odd percent of those registered, but many do not register. Including the non registered the 'abstention' rate is over 70%. Across Europe turnout rates have been in decline for some time. In this talk Bulgarian political theorist Ivan Krastev asks pertinent questions and offers some acute observations, though he avoids prescribing answers.

 I rather think a number of his key points are relevant to Jersey. While democracy is the only game in town, it is now one that increasingly people see as not worth playing. The abstention rate is highest among those who have most to gain by voting. It is an issue of trust: 89% of Europeans believe there is a growing gap between the opinions of politicians and those of the people. They have realised they can change governments, but cannot change policies! Until the 1970's increasing democracy was accompanied by increased equality: that has now reversed. We no longer have debate of policy and ideas - political campaigning is focused on manipulation of emotions. Politics is now about the management of mistrust. There's much more - see the video piece:


http://www.ted.com/talks/ivan_krastev_can_democracy_exist_without_trust.html

Why I have not made a submission to the electoral commission

I have been mulling making a submission to the electoral commission.  Thirty years ago I was very active in the campaign for fair votes in the  UK , and I have maintained an interest in electoral and representative systems ever since.  Of course I could just write in with my own personal  thoughts on what my ideal system would look like, but I do not think that is really the point here. I could equally write about the solution I think would make some meaningful and effective changes, without moving too far from the current system - a solution that might gain a degree of support. But the more I have thought of it, the more I have come to the conclusion that my difficulty in  formulating a submission is rooted in the flawed nature of the commission and its remit,and the expectation of what it can deliver.

An independent electoral commission was proposed by the then deputy for St Mary because the States had shown itself repeatedly to be incapable of making meaningful reforms of any consequence on its own account.  In rejecting proper independence and making half the members of the commission States members, that commission risks sinking straight back into that mire.  Its outcome will have to go to be debated by the States before possibly going to a referendum, thereby ensuring the body that caused the problem yet again has the opportunity to fully mess it up. 

Related to that last point, and one that caused me initially to be unable to formulate a submission, is the lack of formalised criteria for success of the commissions work.  There is, I think, an implicit one that it has to be acceptable to the States.  That at least was a key reason for the  States decision to remove the proper independence of the commission. How should I know if my submssion should be my personal preference, or a pragmatic proposal to make useful advance, if there are no criteria or fundamental principles to apply?  The Reform Jersey campaign have done well here in laying out the key  principles that  they believe are required, based broadly on a theme of fair and equal votes and representation for all. 

Having read some of the previous States debates, there will surely be a section in the assembly pressing for 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness' as the guiding criteria.  Clearly the most efficient and effective govenrment system is one where there is no discussion or dissent.  I prefer a diversity of views, rational debate and open discussion.  Yes, there is a price to pay, but this is the model by which science has advanced, opens the possibility of better quality decisions and policies for having been well examined and scrutinised from a variety of  perspectives and criteria.  I shall return to the issue of scrutiny later.

One of the disappointing aspect for me is how little the principles of subsidiarity and accountability have surfaced in the debate so far.  These would come some way above efficiency and effectiveness in importance for me and they also complicate the thinking behind that other guiding principle behind the Reform Jersey group.   Looking at equality of representation of fairness of votes the obvious conclusion is that something has to be done about the connétables.  Subsidiarity would have power exercised at the lowest level possible.  In Jersey that means the parish, headed of course by the connetable. When we look at accountability, the only States members that actually have to face their electorate fairly regularly and can be questioned by their electors about their States activity are the connetables. In fact any 4 electors of a parish can lay a requête to have a parish meeting to discuss a matter and if so desired instruct the connetable accordingly.  It is true such mechanisms are seldom used in that manner, but it is a useful part of the democratic armoury.  Of course it is not necessary to have  the connetables in the States to have these facilities.  What I would argue is that it would be desirable  if all States members could be similarly accountable.  It is workable in single member constituencies, such as we currently have for connétables, but it is unclear how this might be implemented in multimember constituencies.

The issue of constituency size and nature has arisen and needs some comment. Clearly with their disparate number of electors, it is not possible to have equality of representation, and the same number of votes per elector, if constituencies are based on single parishes.The options therefore are to have parishes combined into superconstituencies, to have a single island wide constituency, or, seldom discussed, have constituencies smaller than a parish.

Senators currently are elected on an all island vote - a single constituency. Some advantages are apparent. People are only elected on some widespread support for their  policies (in theory at least), and there is no issue of fudging constituency boundaries for electoral advantage. There are concerns too.  Most importantly we do not use a proportional election system, so that minority support can be sufficient to get people elected, and those elected are more likely to be of a single political view rather than a diversity. Superconstituencies have the same concern regarding a proportional voting system.  There is also a problem of senatorial  hustings in that speeches are so short and questions so few that issues cannot be debated or a whole island programme spelled out.  Many commentators have ruled  out  a single island constituency as impractical from the view of hustings. However as the organisation of  hustings is  properly the concern of the candidates, and not part of the election law (except perhaps as relates to expenses), this isn't a valid objection to an all island remit.

A related issue to constituency size is that of the size of the assembly.   As alluded to above re senators, there is an aspect here that concerns itself with pragmatic  mechanics, rather than any higher principles. Reducing the numbers saves some money and may lead to faster decision making.  But it also reduces the diversity of opinion that can be represented, and if the reduction is more than a handful would lead a set where more were in government as ministers and assistant minister than are outside. It is a perfectly good argument on representation grounds that as the population has grown the number of representatives should also have grown to enable better access, giving a wider choice of members for the assembly and to select as ministers. Again without any guiding principles or aims to the commission's work, we have no means to determine what options here are appropriate.

Unfortunately the States split the considration of the mechanics of government (ministers scrutiny etc) so that is being handled through PPC. Scrutiny is a critical role. In a party system it arises by opposition, and someone effective in scrutiny in opposition could find themselves a minister if their party attained power. In a non party system, taking an effective scrutiny role is more likely to result in no future ministerial role.  Jersey's current set up does not encourage robust scrutiny.  Given the interaction between factors being dealt with by the two bodies this seems to me to have been a daft decision.  Perhaps it is fitting - a testament to the  historical ability of the States to make concurrently inconsistent and self contradictory decisions.

In truth, even if the commission were to come up with some wide ranging changes that met the concerns of Reform Jersey and were not butchered by the States, and were approved in a referendum, would anything substantive change?  Would we still not have policies like the energy white paper, 6 years in the  waiting and still not delivered? Would we still not have the  situation like the town park, over ten years between agreeing and actually doing anything about it?  Would we end the prevarication and watering down of the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry into child abuse? Would Jersey be prepared to make the changes in society necessary to tackle climate change, and prepare for the consequence of a world without cheap fossil fuels? I doubt it because these things are not so much dependent on the structure or representation in the assembly. It has already voted for them in some measure, what they fear to do is implement them.  No amount of structural tinkering will fill that political leadership vacuum. What is needed just as much is a change in mindset.