OPINION: ‘We need to work together’

LAST week, we heard that the ESC president had excluded a committee member from certain discussions. Only those on the committee will understand the nature of this particular situation and others more aware of the rules than I can opine on the appropriateness of this action. However, this event clearly serves to highlight both the overall dysfunction in the Assembly right now and the level of frustration felt by deputies, particularly those with minority views and those with policies to urgently push forward.

Differing opinions within the States are a must, but we don’t want minority opinions derailing sensible policy advancement. These views need to be included and taken into account when polices are being drawn up. We do want to hear these opinions as they are likely to be shared by many islanders. I am assured that there are mechanisms within the States to allow members to prepare policy letters to reflect their views if they are not being considered.

We want deputies to respect each other enough to accept when things are not going their way. To either listen to dissenting voices to try to include them or to accept when their view is not the prevailing view of the committee on which they sit and help that committee find a compromise. It is acceptable to leave a committee if you don’t feel your views will be taken into account, but this should be a last resort.

Above all, we need to get back to making consensus-based decisions and we need to make them more quickly.

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

This statement is often attributed to Theodore Roosevelt, but no known source can be found to verify this.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato as it is more commonly known) is an example of an organisation which also operates by consensus like our own States of Deliberation. It was set up in 1949 in response to Soviet armies being stationed in central and eastern Europe after the Second World War. It is a military alliance and when the Cold war ended, Nato was rebranded as a ‘cooperative-security’ organisation. An attack on any Nato member is deemed to be an attack on Nato as a whole, and as such membership is highly prized.

There is no voting in Nato. Proposals are discussed and debated until all nations are in agreement with the proposed strategy and that has been highly effective to date. This means that decisions carry weight as all member states are in agreement and it means that decisions can be made quickly.

How do they do this? They share information regularly and discuss issues as they arise, they ensure that any key concerns do not become a problem. All member states benefit from the protection of the alliance and it is therefore in all of their interests to work together for mutual benefit.

Although our own States includes voting, our lack of political parties makes working together and finding common ground essential. Yet this is currently not working.

Majority views are not considering significant minority positions, leaving not only deputies frustrated and fighting among themselves, but also leaving the public disengaged and disillusioned. As we approach the next election, there appears to be a mixture of avoidance of difficult decisions and a pushing through of unpopular policies to ensure something is done but we have yet to agree on the direction of travel.

Many columnists in this paper in recent months have asked the States to decide between a small government approach – lower taxes yet fewer services and more targeted support – and a large government approach, where taxes are higher but we are all covered for many more of the things that we need. No such decision has been made and this explains why it is becoming increasingly difficult to make progress.

Nato is clear in its aims, clear in its role and clear in how it plans to reach decisions and this is reflected in the expediency with which it is able to execute and implement its decisions and the longevity of many members’ memberships. Compromises are made, frequently, in order to preserve the organisation and make sure it is able to act when necessary.

Horace Camp last week advocated for an immediate election to solve the current perceived problem of States inaction. Individual deputies have been called out by others for their lack of progress, attempts to obstruct or even to rapidly progress decisions within the States and it is becoming hard to see how this can be fixed.

Whether we want to clear the decks and elect a fresh Assembly or to support deputies and ask them to revise their approach, we need to make some decisions. As voters we have to accept that some of us will be unhappy whatever the outcome but that the sooner decisions are made, the sooner we can correct the course and make something happen.

It is natural to fear change. We should be careful of making decisions that will cause too much disruption at this challenging time (yes GST, I am talking about you) and should be focused on strategic decisions that push the responsibility back to us, the public, to look after ourselves if we can, to plan for our own futures if we are able, and be responsible for playing our part in contributing to the lowering of costs or raising of revenue where this is feasible.

Ask not what Guernsey can do for you, but rather what you can do for Guernsey. Can you afford your own long-term care? Then ask to contribute towards this. Can you afford health insurance to cover elective surgery and acute illness? Then use it. Can you afford to plan for your own retirement? Get cracking. Have you got an empty house you need help renting out? Ask for help to do so.

In a healthy society we should largely fend for ourselves and the States should be stepping in to promote economic growth, sport, environment and culture and to financially support the most vulnerable, not all of us. Most of us will benefit naturally from a stronger economy, regenerated public services, facilities and transport hubs. The States is not there to preserve our estates so we can pass them on in full to our relatives when we die, the States is not there to pay for things we can afford to pay for ourselves. Who knows when any of us will be vulnerable and need their support. Looking after ourselves when we can will reduce our future deficit, make us all feel much more engaged in political life and encourage us to hold our deputies to account in different ways.

This (and this applies to deputies as well as the community at large) is not about hanging on tightly to what we each have at the expense of the rest of the population – this is about thinking as a community and making really difficult consensus decisions that will protect us for years to come and make us all proud.

We all need to own our own decisions and the States needs to make some tough ones as a unit working towards a common goal. This is not about winning votes. Although making us all truly own our future on this island will win my vote.