Coping with the conundrum of consensus government

ONE of the great conundrums of Guernsey politics has been the concept of leadership.

How do you lead in a consensus system, where so much comes down to building alliances, compromise, trade-offs and getting to a common ground?

More importantly, how do you lead quickly and decisively, driving through policies that impact on thousands in a timely fashion.

The report released into Alderney governance has echoes in Guernsey, echoes only amplified by what is happening at Education, Sport & Culture.

That report said that the absence of political parties and the dominance of the committee system causes a dispersal of power rather than a concentration.

'This may have some attractions, but it also has drawbacks: members who have been elected without necessarily articulating their position on the big issues of the day wield power through shifting alliances,' it stated.

'Advocates would argue that this is what representative democracy is all about, but this system is unlikely to give rise to consistent policy making nor to the determined pursuit of a strategy.

'And it is worth adding that most English local authorities have now abandoned committees in favour of the cabinet system. The reason? The committee system failed to deliver strong political leadership, even when stiffened by party discipline.'

What we are seeing at Education over secondary education is the type of confusion, dithering and infighting that can blight the consensus system at times.

The committee president Paul Le Pelley strongly believes he was elected both to the States and then to the presidency because a majority of the public and his colleagues want to retain some form of selection.

Anyone who has listened to him on the subject would be in no doubt as to his position – he was open about his views.

He then picked a board where pro-selection deputies were apparently in the majority, and the States voted for that.

But how the saga has unfolded shows how dangerous it is to read the runes of votes for positions in the States or in a general election as giving someone a 'mandate' to unravel previously agreed policy.

People were not voting in either case solely on one issue or one stance – especially in the general election where the public are drawn to personalities – there are no true manifestos.

Some five months after the general election and the committee has failed to articulate a clear position on the topic of selection – instead it has lurched in one direction and then another, causing confusion and instability.

That is because for all the trappings of the title, a committee president cannot set a new course without some authority to do so.

That authority did not come in the general election, under a consensus model how could it? Nor did it come in the committee elections.

In this case it can only ever come from a debate and a vote in the Assembly.

That is what has proven so infuriating about the secondary education debate.

Why has it taken until now to realise that the States' backing was needed to revisit such a major policy?

Getting a real mandate should have been number one on the committee's priorities, not wasting staff time going down blind alleys on a wing and a prayer.

Now it has thankfully come to that conclusion, Deputy Le Pelley has indicated that members will simply vote on whether to accept or reject last term's resolutions.

So what of the five months' worth of investigations it has done into the topic of a revised form of selection, and the surveys of staff – surely information that now it has been collated, even if it did come from a misjudgement, should go before States members to help the decision making process?

Not doing so only fuels the fear that the selection 'mandate' and argument is not as clear cut as its supporters would have you believe.

What leadership being shown in this situation has been forced by the circumstances that have unfolded.

The pledge for a vote in November has taken any momentum out of calls for a vote of no confidence, but it does not kill them off.

This is still a board where the relationship with its staff broke down to the point that Policy & Resources needed to step in.

P&R was also at the table when Education made its decision to go back to the States – this type of intervention so early on in the term is unprecedented and a concerning sign.

The senior committee is clearly worried.

If the States votes to continue on the path to all-ability education, Deputy Le Pelley's position is undermined to such an extent that he should step aside. It will not be a happy job to be in, bringing in a system you do not believe in is not demonstrating the type of conviction his cheerleading St Sampson's colleague Deputy Lyndon Trott spoke about so effusively this weekend.

Will someone who does not believe in something drive a policy through as quickly, enthusiastically and effectively as someone who does?

Even if the States does back selection, there remains questions about the relationship breakdown within the committee and who is to blame – and how that translates into ES&C's work generally as the term moves on.

Remember too that this is a committee that has two areas of responsibility explicit in its title what we have heard precious little of so far.

Guernsey's politics being what it is, the idea of forcing someone or their team out of position so early on would be pretty unpalatable. Committee heads have laboured on before, they will labour on again.

The question has to be is this really the type of leadership the island needs?