Voters rejected the status quo by overwhelmingly rejecting ‘the establishment’ option, namely Option B, which proposed 38 elected deputies over seven electoral districts, offering five or six votes per voter at each election every four years.
In effect, the status quo.
Option B garnered less than 25% of the primary vote, so by definition, 75% of the voters who participated in the referendum wanted a change from the current system. Of the five options A, C and E offered a variation of island-wide voting. Together they attracted just over 70% of the primary vote, a clear indicator that people want a variation of island wide voting as opposed to the status quo.
Since the referendum, I’ve read comments from campaigners for Options B and C remonstrating that ‘Option A won by default’, that the referendum was ‘too complicated for typical voters’ and that people didn’t understand the ‘importance of the preferential voting system’.
With due respect, I disagree. The residents of Guernsey made their intentions very clear… they want change. The fact that Option B, representing the status quo, was knocked out in round three speaks volumes.
Watching an exit poll interview on the TV nightly news on the evening of the vote, an elderly gentleman was asked which option he voted for and why. The gent replied that he voted for option A, as it was the one that best guaranteed to ‘get rid of the current lot’.
The residents of Guernsey, in impressive number (45% of registered voters participated in the referendum), have sent a clear message to the elected States – they want change and they want it now.
The elected States representatives, and in particular the States’ Assembly and Constitution Committee, must give the residents of Guernsey an island wide voting system that respects the referendum outcome in its purest form. As Brexit means Brexit, so island-wide voting means island-wide voting. No fudge and no funny business.
It has been suggested that island-wide voting will encourage the formation of associations or parties to allow candidates to pool resources and to run on a common manifesto.
I agree this is the most effective way to get elected under the new system, particularly for lesser known candidates. There are, in my opinion, 12 or so sitting deputies who have a sufficient profile to guarantee their re-election on an island-wide basis. The remaining lesser known deputies will struggle to get elected, given that in the main they were elected on parochial electorate manifestos, some by fewer than 1,000 votes. The move to an island-wide voting system will be attractive to candidates who are motivated by broader island-wide politics and strategic platforms rather than parochial considerations.
Until the happening of recent days, I would have said that the big winner in the referendum was arguably the Islanders Association, and in particular, its driving force Deputy Carl Meerveld. He was the face and driving force behind the Islanders Association, which despite challenge and opposition from various ‘establishment’ forces, persevered and prevailed in achieving its objective of encouraging resident participation in the referendum and second in promoting support for option A.
By his own assessment, Deputy Meerveld can be a polarising figure, but credit where credit is due, he tapped into the community’s desire for change and ran a successful multifaceted campaign, almost single-handedly driving the case for option A. Perhaps the ‘one man show’ nature of the association’s involvement in the referendum had a part to play in the disintegration of its executive committee.
If island-wide voting leads to the formation of additional associations, alliances or parties ahead of the next general election, then the Islanders Association – at least until recent events – arguably had a clear head start on all ‘newcomers’. How successfully the Islanders Association handles the outfall following the resignation of three of its executive committee, including two deputies and its chairman, will determine whether the association is a ‘flash in the pan’ or will continue to be a force in local politics. For the present, the association’s brand has taken a hit and observers are watching with interest for its next move.
Confirming that politics makes for strange bedfellows, I was intrigued by the imagery of the coming together of ex-Islander Deputy Peter Ferbrache and Deputy Gavin St Pier in their amendment against the States’ rules of procedure to change the length of term of office from four to five years. Is this the start of another ‘alliance’ or ‘association’, in practice if not in name?
Changing the voting system alone won’t be enough to dramatically change the workings of government.
What is required is a review of the machinery of government to give the elected States the ability to effect dramatic and effective reform to drive economic development. So while the referendum on the voting system has been an interesting exercise, it isn’t the panacea to the working of government and must be seen as the first step along a path of reform of the machinery of government.
What is needed is an independent ‘root and branch’ review of the present machinery of government, in effect, a Harwood Report mark 2. In the later years of the last century, the States commissioned an independent review of the machinery of government known as the Harwood Report. The review looked at the role of the Bailiff, the workings and number of the various States committees, gave consideration to the number of States members as well as looking at the system of deputy election and the case for executive government.
The move to island-wide voting invites a serious consideration of executive government. Those elected through island-wide voting are likely to be focused on island-wide politics as opposed to parochial issues. Executive-style government facilitates focus on macro issues rather than on parochial considerations.
The Harwood Report considered various potential forms of executive government. One system described was that resembling the then Isle of Man system where the selected chief minister forms an executive council of 12 elected deputies to act as ministers, each heading up a department to replace the existing committee system. The appointed ministers are entitled to nominate a junior or assistant minister. No further politicians form part of a department.
An executive system of government would open up the possibility for a further review of deputy numbers. The current committee system, by design, requires a higher number of deputies to share the workload of the committee structure. An executive system of government, made up of 12 departments, each headed up by a minister and one assistant minister, could be managed by a significantly reduced cohort of deputies.
The referendum result was a clear directive that there is a desire for change in the manner of representation in the States but also, I would suggest, the result indicates a mood for a review and reform of the machinery of government. The categorical rejection of option B is a clear message that the status quo is not an option.
The States need to commit to a Harwood Report mark 2 as part of a reform agenda leading up to the next general election in 2020. The community will reward those individuals and associations that take up the challenge.
u Dr Stretch Kontelj has lived in Guernsey for three years. He is vice-chairman of the Guernsey branch of the Institute of Directors and takes a keen interest in local politics.
Originally from Australia of Slovenian heritage, he is a former mayor and councillor of Greater Geelong, a city in Victoria, Australia, of some 250,000 people.
u @StretchKontelj
You need to be logged in to comment.