Sound the retreat
IN BOTH Guernsey and Jersey, the political class has suddenly become awash with thoughts on how to appear to be more inclusive, get more States members involved and shy away from ministerial powers.
IN BOTH Guernsey and Jersey, the political class has suddenly become awash with thoughts on how to appear to be more inclusive, get more States members involved and shy away from ministerial powers.
Jersey's march to ministerial government could be about to be diverted into a system that creates boards to help hold those in power to account and influence decision-making.
Not quite a full retrenchment into consensus government, but enough to get supporters of that system over here interested, no doubt.
It comes at the same time as proposals have been released as part of Guernsey's States Strategic Plan that would mean annual debates on departments' policies.
After all, having delegated a department with five political representatives power to do a job and created an overarching five-year vision into which all their work has to fit, you would not want them to get on with it, would you?
To some, talk of adjustments to the system of government is akin to navel gazing.
But the slow burn of essential reform is already under way and both pro and anti-ministerial campaigners will monitor the Jersey situation closely.
In October, its States will debate a proposal by Senator Alan Breckon that is understood to have wide-ranging support - Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur already has his name attached to it as a member of the working party that refined it.
It came about because of a desire for a more-inclusive system of government.
'There was recognition that many members of the Assembly currently felt "excluded" and many talents were being wasted as a result of this exclusion which could, in turn, lead to negative confrontation taking place,' the proposal says.
In Jersey, those who are not ministers or deputy ministers are responsible for scrutinising the executive's decisions.
The new system would leave the minister responsible for taking decisions, but create a board of three to five who would advise him.
They would meet regularly and their conclusions on policies would be recorded.
'In addition to their role in assisting and advising the minister on the development of policy, the boards would also fulfil an important role to question the minister on his or her actions and proposals and hold him or her to account as a form of internal challenge,' it said.
'In this way some of the 'scrutiny' of the department that is undertaken by the relevant scrutiny panel under the current system would be undertaken by the board.'
For heavyweight policies, specialist working parties would be set up to scrutinise proposals independently.
Just what happens to a minister at loggerheads with a board that cannot demand a different course is one of the downsides not addressed in the report.
But just as it looks to give more deputies more influence, the new system of government being proposed would also give the chief minister the power to fire a minister if a majority of the council of ministers agree.
It takes that out of the hands of the States and so would be swifter, but the Assembly would be responsible for electing all the ministers or their replacements.
'The political consequence of a dismissed minister being reappointed as a minister would, of course, almost certainly be that the chief minister would have to tender his or her resignation and this, in itself, would be a sufficient safeguard to ensure that the chief minister did not exercise the power of dismissal in an unreasonable way.'
The power to hire and fire is seen as one of the reforms needed locally by some that suggest the chief minister's role here lacks any real power and relies on force of personality.
No mention is made of Guernsey's consensus model in the proposal, nor does it examine the Isle of Man's bicameral executive model.
Three different answers in the Crown Dependencies, with much common ground on the issues they face.
But what Guernsey and Jersey politicians do seem to share is a determination to find a job for everyone.
You hope it is not a just an exercise in creating more work for deputies or senators just to keep them busy - if that was the case, they could be perversely making a very good argument for a smaller number of States members.
What Jersey and Guernsey's new proposals seem to share is a fear of delegating responsibility.
The States Strategic Plan sets out the pros and cons of having 47 people debating the day-to-day work of a department once a year.
The proposition would be a gift to those so keen on writing letters and threatening requetes to get action when they are unhappy with a department's work.
It will be seen as dangerous for those who fear more political micro-management.
