Lobbying shows power of liberating the people's voice

IT IS a common refrain from those who are often the most ardent critics of the States – 'they just don't listen to the public'.

Well, last week was one of those examples where you can turn around and say that actually, they do – at least sometimes.

The same-sex marriage debate was a prime example of what can be achieved by strong lobby groups.

It follows on from other examples this term where organised interest groups can put momentum into an issue that otherwise would fail to move.

The disability strategy would not be in place if it was not for the work of the Disability Alliance, paid parking or other taxes would be in place or higher if Enough is Enough and the motor trade had not fought against the proposals.

Whichever side you sit on with these issues, you cannot deny that a strong lobby influences the decision-making process.

Take same-sex marriage.

Work had stalled for the best part of 10 years. The investigation into civil partnerships had not happened because there was no political will to take it forward and no sustained public pressure to make it happen.

There were no equality campaigners to highlight the shortcomings and what that meant.

Liberate changed that and made it a mainstream issue again.

When it became one, we learned that the island was much more progressive than many would have thought.

The consultation the Policy Council carried out was also effective.

Those who responded from all sectors of society rounded against the chief minister-led plans for a union civile and in response the ministers ended up U-turning and proposing same-sex marriage.

There was a clear thread and demonstrable political reaction to the public appetite.

Guernsey's political system means that lobbying can be particularly effective.

Individuals are not tied to party lines – they are also much more accessible than politicians elsewhere.

This can, and does, however, lead to problems.

The vocal minority can sway political decisions more than they should.

Deputies who lack backbone can swing one way and then another as public interest waxes and wanes.

Guernsey has no referendum legislation so no formal way for the States to ask the wider public its views.

That is a democratic deficit that needs to be overcome, even more so now that some sections of the public's voice can be heard louder and louder because of social media.

Everyone online has an opinion and they aren't afraid to voice it. That can and does create a lot of noise which it can be very easy to become disproportionately distracted by.

One of the questions for all democracies is how to give everyone a voice, how to engage the whole community proactively, and not just on the odd hot topic.

That way lies robust decision-making because the challenge to what is going on is that much stronger the more eyes that are cast over it from different perspectives.

In Jersey a new think tank – the Jersey Policy Forum – has been launched which aims to contribute analysis and ideas on topical issues.

It has some lofty ambitions.

'That there is no such body in Jersey, combined with a non-party political system, contributes to a fragmented, and often not well-informed, approach to policy making,' its website states.

'The forum seeks to fill this gap by stimulating research and publishing papers on topical issues of specific relevance to Jersey.

'The forum will be fiercely independent, not being affiliated to government or any political grouping.

'In time, the forum may become a credible voice on topical issues for island micro-states more broadly.'

A similar body in Guernsey would be a welcome addition to the general debate, adding more balance and critical thinking.

It could draw on the skills and abilities from those who are too busy or disinclined to stand for office for whatever reason but still want to contribute to a successful island, but with a wider focus than the current lobby or support groups allow.

Something one step removed from government would be a healthy addition, too, neither tainted by association or too easily suckered into support policy proposals.

Politicians and civil servants need to recognise that they do not have a monopoly on good ideas – equally, some people also need to recognise that just because a decision is made that they do not agree with it does not mean they have not been listened to.

The same-sex marriage debate was for the most part a great example of an issue where all views were aired and considered before a final decision was made.

That should be the norm, though the back-slapping and self-congratulating going on in the States because members felt they had had a quality debate shows that we are still a long way from achieving that.