Improving the political system should be priority

A one-party solution?

Mr Digard starts out by saying political parties are not the solution but advocates a grass roots movement leading to the creation of a single party. Unfortunately I seem to remember several countries who adopted that model with disastrous results.

If we only had one party there would be no mechanism for different views to be expressed. We would effectively have executive government which many people say they fear.

Funding

Mr Digard says that considerable funding is required. How can the Guernsey First party be independent if it is on the hook to its backers?

The origin of parties

It seems to me that parties spring organically out of ideologies and causes. In the UK the Labour Party out of workers’ rights and the Conservative Party from employer and capitalist interests and the Communist Party from the writings of Karl Marx.

Mr Digard does not describe the type of policies which Guernsey First would adopt in the same way that Donald Trump never specifies what ‘great’ means in ‘Make America Great Again’ so that it can mean whatever pet hobby horse each individual has. If we did introduce an inclusive multi-party system in Guernsey I am sure that many parties could take root naturally out of special interests, political philosophies, economic theory, social theories and so on. It would be accepted that they would be influenced by their sources of funding.

Title/name

The name ‘Guernsey First’ has some negative connotations:

n That we are not interested in the wellbeing and prosperity of the rest of the world.

n Anything that benefits Guernsey (which in itself needs to be defined) is good.

n The opinions of those who disagree are not of value.

I suspect that Mr Digard intends that it denotes that members would put the interests and needs of the island before those of the individual politician.The party name should engender and embody a collaborative approach which is designed to benefit as many as possible.

Failure of parties to take off and island-wide voting

The reason why the introduction of parties in Guernsey failed was that there was absolutely no advantage to deputies joining a party.

Joining a party inevitably involves subjugating one’s own views to that of the party to a lesser or greater extent. There was no incentive for deputies to do so under the political system at that time because there was no mechanism for the implementation of party policies.

We could revert to district voting which would immediately result in a higher proportion of votes not being ‘wasted’. Party politics could still work on a regional basis as it does in the UK.

Executive government is not dictatorship

Parties would need to hammer out policies within their own membership. The current lack of such a process leads to much wasted time in States sittings and, worse, a failure to make decisions which is often damaging and expensive.

Current decision-making under the ‘consensus’ system is deeply flawed. Executive government would result from political parties developing and agreeing policies which would be presented at elections and, if later put forward in the States, after debate with parties with different views. A party system should be introduced as part of a change to proportional representation. Proportional representation works very successfully in many Nordic countries.

My vision is for a democratic political system producing coalition government mandated to govern for the good of the island as a whole within the international context.

Chicken or egg

Mr Digard describes a fully grown, mature chicken, with bells and whistles attached. It looks and sounds very attractive but I do not believe such a creation will rise up out of nothing, or even Mr Digard’s grass roots, even if it were desirable.

It is said that every journey starts with the first step.

How about candidates standing for election in 2025 declaring that they are committed to improving the political system in the island and the new States creating a committee dedicated to that purpose rather than the moribund Assembly and Constitutional Committee and apathetic Scrutiny Management Committee?

It may be that initial versions are not fully developed but the system would hopefully mature and improve with time and experience as various parties grew organically.

Therefore, while I am with Mr Digard on the desperate need for change I disagree on the shape and means by which it may happen.

RICHARD CORBIN

St Andrew’s