The Machinery of Government and Island Wide Voting
Introduction
As Guernsey’s election approaches, public frustration with the States’ performance over the past four and a half years is evident. Whilst the ‘business as usual’ part of delivering for the island has largely run on as normal, some islanders understandably feel let down by lack of progress, especially on issues such as housing, education and healthcare. It’s perhaps unsurprising therefore that certain commentators are blaming the system – aka ‘the machinery of government’ – as the reason the States doesn’t appear to be delivering. This has resulted in a scattering of calls for a wholesale structural change by implementing executive government. In such a system individual ministers would have power to decide policy. Or at least, that is how I interpret these calls – they have been thin on detail, save that power would be concentrated in fewer hands – presumably hands that agree with the proponents of change. Others, however, have argued that we stand to lose more than we would gain by moving away from the consensus system. Nevertheless, as W Edwards Deming, says: ‘Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are getting’, and its undeniable that a good number in our community are not happy with what we are getting. Debates about governance structures focus on committees vs. ministers, while the people in the system are a critical but overlooked factor.
The people in the system
The best system in the world will fail if the people in it are not up to the task, Equally the worst system won’t deliver effectively even with the very best people. The people in the system are the deputies (and the civil service, but space does not permit a discussion of that here). They arrive in the system via an election. Asking voters to select up to 38 candidates from a field of around 90 creates a paradox of choice. A Scrutiny survey conducted by Island Global Research on the last Island Wide election asked people what sources they had used when assessing candidates and, by a country mile, the top one was the manifesto booklet. 87% of voters used it and 81% said it was the most useful resource. Next was the States election website, with only half that number finding it useful. Less popular still were candidates’ own websites and social media, which a mere 13% of respondents found to be of use.
These responses are not surprising. Trawling through scores of separate websites is an onerous task but flicking through the manifesto booklet while having a coffee, or over a pizza with friends is altogether quicker and easier. It’s clear that many of the electorate largely or entirely rely on the booklet to make their choices, perhaps only speaking directly to two or three candidates and this is entirely understandable. But as one panellist in a Scrutiny public hearing on Island Wide Voting said: “I endeavoured to go to all the opportunities where I could meet candidates and what I found a few times was that the person I thought would make a great deputy on paper, when I got to talk to them I realised ‘oh my goodness, I really don’t want this person at all.’” And this isn’t surprising. No employer would hire an applicant for an important role (in this case literally running the island) purely on the strength of a two- or four-page resume. They’ll certainly want to meet the person before committing. But we’re hiring 38 people to run the island almost entirely on the basis of a very short manifesto that might have been written entirely by AI. The change to Island Wide voting was driven by the laudable and understandable desire to be able to vote for any candidate. However, reforming this system could
contribute to much better scrutiny of candidates. Systems exist that would still allow people to vote for any candidate but with a much smaller pool of candidates to assess at any one time. Equally splitting the island into 4 districts may be an acceptable compromise. What, in my view must be avoided is a hybrid system: part island-wide, part-district based. The pros and cons of various systems are set out in the Scrutiny Review on Island Wide Voting.
Executive or Consensus?
While some argue that scrapping Guernsey’s consensus model for an executive system would solve many of our problems, the reality is more complex. Supporters of an executive model argue that concentrating power in a cabinet-style government would clarify accountability and speed up decision-making. But such a shift is not without risk. It overlooks the experience of executive systems elsewhere. Jersey, with its quasi-executive system, managed to spend £100m and an inordinate amount of time not building a hospital, and the UK did similar but on a larger scale with HS2. But even conceding that, for the most part, decision making could be quicker, we also need to be assured that decision making would be better. Quick but wrong decisions are more costly in the long run. Constitutional reviews must involve public consultations and legislative changes. These take resources away from day-to-day governing and delivery of housing, healthcare, and cost-of-living solutions, at both political and administrative levels. Inevitably, changing the system would take years to implement. Once work begins it will quickly be realised that even its proponents all have different ideas about what kind of executive government they want. And when a decision is arrived at, the work is only beginning. Laws need to be rewritten, roles redefined, deputies and civil servants retrained and reorganised. And even if one is prepared to invest all that time and bear the expense, new systems invariably spawn teething troubles in their implementation. Far better in my view to improve the existing system where deputies can collaborate across committees to develop policy, and which lends itself to inclusivity of thought and helps resists groupthink. Its strength lies in ensuring diverse voices shape decisions—a critical feature for a small island community where personal connections and local knowledge matter deeply. However, recent years have exposed its weaknesses with debates that loop endlessly, blurred accountability, and a growing disconnect between deputies and the public they serve, the latter being exacerbated by the electoral system.
Modifying the current system
Perhaps therefore, the pragmatic way forward lies in targeted reforms of the existing machinery, as well as consideration of the challenges presented by Guernsey’s unique electoral system, rather than in a radical structural upheaval. The consensus model, for all its flaws, ensures all deputies have a voice. An executive system risks sidelining challenge, centralizing power in a few hands, and eroding the collaborative culture that defines Guernsey’s political identity. So what could be done to improve the current system? Going back to the people in the system, new deputies who enter office full of enthusiasm but who are perhaps unused to self-directed working can struggle to balance constituency work, committee duties, and reviewing policy letters in detail. The level of support and information provided to new deputies (and returning ones – there’s always something new to learn) has improved over recent political terms but there is still much more that could be done. Attendance at these induction sessions is not mandatory, but at the very least a record of attendance should be made public, suitably nuanced to show if deputies were engaged on States business elsewhere, or indisposed, as a reason for non-attendance. Throughout the term, presentations are scheduled by Committees on their forthcoming policy letters. Attendance by deputies at these presentations varies hugely although, interestingly, the rate of attendance by the female members is generally around twice that of their male colleagues, although I have never quite understood why. The presentations are a valuable resource, enabling deputies to ask questions ahead of the debate thus avoiding going down rabbit holes in the Assembly.
And what of the Assembly itself? In that arena deputies don’t always cover themselves in glory. Whilst a hope for self-restraint and relevance is ever-present, in practice this doesn’t always happen. There is a detailed rule book covering all aspects of procedure, and with due deference to the role of the presiding officer who has the unenviable task of balancing administering the rules whilst not stifling the democratic right of members to speak, I for one would like to see rules enforced more robustly, particularly on spurious points of order, tedious repetition and (lack of) mutual respectfulness, amongst a whole host of other issues.
I would also like to see live video streaming of States debates which would not only enhance openness and transparency by giving a visual window to the world on Deputies’ deliberations, but which might also encourage States members overall to give more thought to their interventions and contributions. Issuing a more accessible summary of each States Meeting, including attendance and voting records would further contribute to public understanding of what is being achieved by the States.
Surprisingly, deputies seating is another issue. Doubtless, this will seem a very minor point, but perhaps it’s more important than it first appears. Let me explain. Before 2020, deputies sat in an allocated seat. There was no choice in the matter. This term, however, it was decided that the two parties would sit facing each other across the Greffier’s desk, in a Westminster-style set up where the Government and the opposition are separated by a distance said to be ‘two swords’ lengths and one inch’.
So the stage was set for confrontation from the outset. The remaining non-party members were free to sit anywhere, changing their seats from day to day if they so wished. In the beginning this led to some towel-on-the-sunlounger antics, as deputies sought to reserve a seat, but soon settled down largely into members sitting with like-minded people. What was lost was being obliged to sit next to someone you might not agree with, but over time establishing a rapport, possibly even a friendship and being open to understanding a different point of view. I believe that irrespective of any parties, seating next term should be allocated rather than free. It could subsequently be reallocated each year or halfway through the term. This measure alone has significant potential to get deputies with different perspectives working together, a lack of which was one of the main downfalls this term.
Taken individually all these points might seem small, irrelevant even. Taken together, I believe they have the potential to significantly improve the way the people in the system work, for the benefit of the community and the island. So, rather than gambling on a years-long structural transition, Guernsey could achieve meaningful progress by reviewing the electoral system in such a way as to enable voters to better scrutinise candidates, and by equipping and resourcing deputies to operate effectively together. Transparency can be increased by summarising meetings in an accessible format, live-streaming States Meetings and publishing attendance figures for training and presentations.
Let’s start producing results now—not after a decade of structural experiments. In the end, I believe that most people don’t care what the system is, they just want the people they have elected to deliver for them.