I occasionally scroll through local social media and it often leaves me wondering if all islanders understand the concept of ‘representative democracy’. I don’t mean to patronise. I realise that the vast majority will do. But some comments seem blind to the fact that we elect our deputies to use their judgment on our behalf. To do what they genuinely perceive as being right for our community. Not to behave like some sort of weather vane on legs.
It goes something like this. We choose from amongst our community those who we think have the wisdom and critical faculties to assess and tackle a range of difficult issues which face the island. And by electing them we make it their job to do just that. Therefore we expect them to spend far more time and energy focusing on those matters than the average busy islander could possibly do.
Of course the public remain the masters (and mistresses) and we can sack our representatives at regular intervals if we are not impressed with the way they use their judgment. But what we can’t expect them to do is to simply set aside that judgment, simply because they think a straw poll of islanders might disagree with their conclusion.
Firstly they can’t really know how the majority think on any given matter. Secondly even if they suspect they might be advocating a minority position they are duty bound to do what they sincerely think is right for Guernsey. It is a truism that in all democracies representatives owe the electorate their judgment.
There is also a clear distinction to draw between what is popular and what is right. Take taxation. Most people hate it. I do too. I have come out in favour of GST-plus, but do I actually want any sort of consumption tax in Guernsey? No. I hate the idea. I simply hate the prospect of an underfunded health service even more. So my judgment, taking everything into account, is that it needs to be done.
As someone whose income these days overwhelmingly comes from the States pension, but who lives in a relatively highly-rated cottage, I hate the current, higher, levels of TRP even more. When that bill lands on my mat I know it will take several weeks worth of my pension to pay it. But at the same time I want to have proper funding for our police and fire services.
As a consumer I would very much like cheaper electricity and water. But I also know that under-investment in those utilities’ infrastructure would be a ticking time bomb.
My point here? Well all taxes and charges are inherently unpopular. So few increases are likely to get a ringing public endorsement. But some may be required for the sake of the community.
I am not saying that all of those listed above are justified, but what I am saying is that it is the duty of our deputies to examine dispassionately and in depth whether they are or not. And if they start from the premise that their job is simply to please the majority at all times then their judgment will inevitably be badly skewed.
Plato has something to say about this in his parable of the ‘large, powerful and dangerous animal’, his critique of Athenian democracy in his masterpiece The Republic. But to quote such a source would be a tad pretentious – so I will avoid it. Anyway I am not sure I would go as far as Plato in desiring ‘philosopher rulers’. Just ones who do what they really think is right – even if they know it may not make them universally popular – will do for me.
A related point here is that it is sometimes a government’s job to lead. If they get too far ahead of the community they serve that won’t work. But occasionally moving a bit faster than the majority might be comfortable with is no bad thing if our elected members are convinced it is in the community’s best interest.
Examples? Well in the absence of plebiscites it is hard to know when (or if) the States has actually gone against the majority of popular opinion, but I can certainly recall many times when they have acted in the face of very widespread opposition.
The introduction of compulsory seatbelt wearing is one. The ban on smoking in enclosed public places another. The legalisation of both homosexual acts and abortion are two more. I could go on but the real point is that all of these decisions share two characteristics. Firstly, they were all taken in the face of widespread public opposition. Secondly, subsequent States assemblies haven’t remotely considered reversing any of them.
But perhaps more to the point, nor has there been much public clamour for a U-turn on any of these things. Sure I accept that there will still be islanders who feel deeply that one or more of these decisions was wrong, but seemingly majority opinion has caught up with the actions of assemblies which dared to lead.
Actually, when I think about it, although some comments on social media may make it seem like islanders want their deputies to be delegates rather than representatives, real-world experience suggests otherwise.
Over the years most (but not all) deputies who have dared to do what they genuinely think is right in the face of widespread public opposition have subsequently been treated quite kindly by the electorate. Some might find that illogical, but I find it quite comforting.
