Local communities will 'lose their voice' under IWV
THE principle of island-wide voting seems to be finding favour with many islanders; two of its main attractions being the opportunity to vote for any candidate and the reduced vulnerability of States committee members to the whims of their constituencies. But before debate becomes limited to the simple dilemma of the benefits of island-wide voting versus the purely practical difficulties of implementing such a scheme during an election, time should also be taken to consider some of the serious implications of island-wide voting for the functioning of the island's political life. Although, from the electorate's point of view, being able to vote for any candidate is a most attractive prospect, the election of a deputy is only the beginning of the political process, the real benefits to society coming through his or her service to the community during their term of office. The crucial question that we should all be asking is: 'Under an island-wide voting system, who or what would deputies serve after being elected, as compared to the present system?'.
In most political systems it is usual for a political representative to be appointed to a group of citizens, thereby bridging the gap between individual citizen and the political executive decision-makers. The group (a constituency) appoints the representative (a deputy). Crucially, the representative serves their constituency because it is the source of his or her political authority, having been elected by the constituency's members. Separate constituencies, together with their separate representatives, reflect real divisions and perspectives within society, making local constituency-level groups and interests more visible and amenable to the service of politicians.
However, in an island-wide voting system each deputy would be mandated to serve exactly the same single, collective electorate as every other deputy. There would be no constituencies, in the case of Guernsey not even any parties, to differentiate the duties and responsibilities according to which deputies should serve. Each deputy would owe their authority to one group only – a global island community – having been elected not by a constituency but the entire island electorate. Yes, deputies would be free to champion whomever or whatever they wanted, as they do now, but ultimately they would be guided in their political lives by whatever the single collective Guernsey constituency wanted.
Without constituencies, local-level groups of deputies would not exist to coordinate and defend local neighbourhood interests. Local perspectives and interests, currently served by the island's seven constituencies, would inevitably tend to be overridden by those political structures which could 'articulate' a global political climate. Local-level political coordination would be dissolved, to be dominated by the well-coordinated interests of those in higher government. Local communities would lose their voice, with a corresponding increase in power at the island-wide governmental level, which would also tend to develop a single, more powerful leadership. Party politics could follow.
It could be argued that under island-wide voting each deputy would be elected to serve the whole island community to the best of their ability, and that nothing but good could come from this. But this would not necessarily be true. The answer to the question as to what the island community needs would vary according to whether a local or global perspective were taken. Such different perspectives are exactly what the political system is supposed to be structured towards, so as to reflect, represent and air for debate the disparate opinions of the various aspects of the community, one which should include the perspectives of local-level constituencies and not just a hypothetical 'global' Guernsey collective.
ANDREW LEE,
Les Salines,
GY4 6DN.
