Jonathan Le Tocq: ‘Leadership must be based on integrity and trust’

In Guernsey’s political landscape, leadership looks very different from the systems seen elsewhere. With a committee-based structure and no significant effective parties, authority is diffuse, and leadership relies less on mandate and more on diplomacy. While this unique system reflects the island’s independence and tradition of consensus, it is vital to note its recurring weaknesses in political direction, decision-making and long-term planning.

So what kind of leadership actually works in Guernsey – and how does it stack up against similar small states such as the other Crown Dependencies?

A system built for collaboration, not command

‘Leadership in Guernsey requires building consensus among a diverse group of deputies, each bringing their own perspectives to the table,’ said Peter Harwood, who served as chief minister from 2012 to 2014. ‘You must be able to listen as much as you lead.’

Guernsey’s 40-member States of Deliberation operates without a party whip or cabinet-style government. The island is governed through a series of committees, each led by a president, with the Policy & Resources Committee serving as the de facto senior council. Its president acts as a first among equals, but lacks executive authority in the traditional sense.

This system places a premium on collaboration, communication, and consensus-building. The best leaders are often those who can bring others along, encouraging opposite sides to find middle ground, rather than those who seek to direct or dominate. However, we have seen too often recently that this structure also makes it easy for leadership to falter when large egos clash, vision is absent, or members are unwilling to compromise.

When leadership works: clear, inclusive, practical

In Guernsey, leadership tends to work best when it’s grounded in openness and genuine public engagement. This was evident during the island’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Clear messaging, calm presentation and transparency in decision-making helped build public trust and fostered collective buy-in at a critical time. You may not have agreed with the direction, but deputies who communicated effectively and avoided political posturing were seen as steadying influences.

Similarly, cross-committee collaboration in areas such as secondary pensions, the Moneyval preparation, international trade and post-Brexit policies has occasionally demonstrated the potential of the system when aligned with competent, low-ego leadership.

Success in Guernsey politics often comes to those who avoid ideological grandstanding and focus instead on making practical progress, even if in small steps. The island’s size and direct democracy mean that public trust can be gained or lost quickly, so visibility, authenticity, consistency and a willingness to listen matter as much as policy detail.

When it doesn’t: lack of direction, poor engagement, and political stasis

Despite these occasional successes, Guernsey’s system often struggles to produce consistent or effective leadership. One key problem is the absence of clear executive accountability. Without a structured opposition, voters often have little idea who is responsible when things go wrong or why key reforms stall. In this way, some might argue, all States members get the blame when things go awry and few get the credit when good things are achieved.

This has been seen repeatedly in areas like tax reform, population policy, education and health service restructuring. Efforts have collapsed due to polarized views, a lack of consensus, poor communication with the public, and insufficient groundwork with fellow deputies. Ambitious policies are frequently launched without enough support to see them through, leading to political gridlock and public disillusionment.

Guernsey has also seen instances where senior figures have alienated colleagues through top-down decision-making, failure to consult or personality-driven leadership. Without the right style of leadership to manage internal cohesion, fractured working relationships have a direct and damaging impact on government function.

Jersey: more structured, but not without strain

Jersey, in contrast, has embraced more formal political structures. Although a few political parties exist, they have yet to serve a major role. Nevertheless, Jersey’s leadership model – defining government more distinctly from parliament – allows for clearer direction and more decisive policy implementation. Ministers have both greater autonomy and responsibility, which can lead to faster progress on complex issues, if this is what is desired.

However, this centralisation has also brought its own problems. Party divisions, cabinet reshuffles and mounting political friction have made it harder for Jersey’s leaders to maintain unity. Recent years have seen public frustration over healthcare, housing, civil service reform and cost-of-living policies, despite structural advantages.

Still, the ability to campaign on policies which can readily be delivered through a more unified executive gives Jersey leaders additional tools, and greater accountability, than their Guernsey counterparts.

Isle of Man: stability through seniority and pragmatism

The Isle of Man takes a different route again. Though largely non-partisan like Guernsey, it operates with a more defined executive. The chief minister, elected by the Tynwald, appoints ministers with clear responsibilities. Again parties remain weak, so leadership tends to emerge through experience and seniority rather than campaigning.

Manx political culture leans heavily on pragmatism and ministers are expected to work closely with the civil service to shape long-term strategy. This has led to relatively stable government and better continuity in areas like economic planning, infrastructure investment, public sector reform and digital services.

While not immune to criticism, particularly around transparency, the Isle of Man has managed to implement significant policy change with less of the internal conflict seen in Guernsey.

Guernsey’s challenge: leadership without leverage

Ultimately, Guernsey’s political system offers both freedom and fragility. Without the constraints of party politics, there is space for independent thought and innovation. However, unless there is the trust, flexibility and civility to channel that independence into cohesive action, good ideas often stall.

Guernsey’s leaders must rely entirely on persuasion, relationship building and wise communication to get things done. When those skills are lacking, or when personal ambition overrides collective responsibility, the system grinds to a halt.

Proposals for reform, including moves toward an executive government model, have surfaced repeatedly, only to be rejected or watered down. For now, Guernsey remains committed to its committee-based structure. But as policy challenges grow more complex, the need for stronger, more coordinated leadership becomes harder to ignore.

Conclusion: rethinking leadership, not just leaders

Laurie Morgan, Guernsey’s first chief minister (2004–2007), highlighted the challenge: ‘One of the most difficult aspects… was maintaining discipline and keeping debate constructive. There’s no party whip to call on – you have to rely on respect and persuasion.’

The answer may not lie solely in structural reform, but in the style and substance of leadership itself. Guernsey’s system demands a form of leadership rooted in humility, patience and the ability to build trust – within the States itself and with the public.

Rather than seeking power, successful leaders in Guernsey must cultivate influence based on integrity and trust. Rather than pushing a personal agenda, they must focus on forging consensus. And rather than relying on titles or authority, they must lead by example.

Whether Guernsey can produce more of these leaders, and give them the tools to succeed, may define the island’s political future more than any single policy ever could.