In the election of 2012 a significant number of new and returning candidates swept into the States Chamber. There seemed to be what the media quickly nick-named a “Sarnian Spring” - an unfortunate choice of phrase based on what seemed like positive shifts into more democratic models of government taking place in the Arab world at that time. Of course these movements proved to be quite destructive in certain places - ours fortunately was not - but it was nevertheless similarly somewhat disappointing. Hope lingered on, for a few months, that the States of 2012 would not be dubbed “worst states ever” but within a year or so very little optimism remained. The election of 2016 was not dissimilar in terms of expressions of disappointment if not despair amongst our island community, and in my opinion the polarisation had sadly increased along with the dysfunctionality.
Why was this?
I believe it has a lot to do with a misunderstanding about how the States, our Assembly, our island government works, moreover what it needs in order to work well, or at least better. I believe this misunderstanding has existed for sometime but still persists. I was first elected in 2000 and there was at that time a regular critique of the then 57 member Assembly of possessing a “silo” or “bunker” mentality. Nine of us back then were fortunate enough to be newcomers (or returnees after a break) including the late great Dave Jones, and my old school contemporary Lyndon Trott!
For me as a newcomer it was a steep learning curve - not so much in terms of how the Guernsey machinery of government works - my father was very much involved in the Douzaine and I was fortunate enough to attend a school where they taught us how Guernsey is governed, so I grew up with a working knowledge of Billets, debates, committee work etc. No, the shock for me was more about how few people I really knew in the new assembly, how few knew me and how long it was taking to get to know how they worked and related to others. There was nothing built into the system to assist newcomers with this, and of course those who had been members for years just carried on as normal.
I knew a few existing members - Roger Berry, John Langlois and the late Conseiller Eric Walters (who had been kind enough to nominate me) - these certainly helped encourage and introduce me to others, plus there were one or two social events where you could meet other newly elected members - but largely you were left to your own devices to find out what others believed, what were their priorities, values, modus operandi etc. And all this happened after the election, even after presidential and committee elections took place. It was a bit like the cult series “Lost” - finding yourself marooned on a desert island, with a crowd of random strangers, a few of whom you thought you might get on with, some of whom already clearly did not get on with each other, and a lot you had no idea about at all! Lost is a good word for it.
The trouble with this is that the electorate had high hopes for us, having democratically elected us to work together effectively and efficiently on their behalf to face high level challenges and solve complex problems. Some of us had even promised to deliver simple solutions to those complex problems. But even to begin to do so you needed to know and relate fairly well with other States Members. We were thus effectively set up to disappoint from day one. Speaking with the benefit of hindsight and my experience of several elections and Assemblies as an independent candidate, it takes at least around 9-12 months for such an Assembly of 40ish people to get to know each other well enough and to begin to learn how to behave sufficiently cohesively in order produce even simple policy decisions with any hope of being effective. As a result if you look back at new terms you find there is very little activity for the first year. This delay is caused by the conditions I’m describing.
Now of course in some ways such delays happen elsewhere in situations where a coalition government is being formed. Normally coalitions are between two or perhaps (in the European context) three parties. And they can be successful. The truth is our States is by default a coalition of 40 “parties” of individuals. That’s why it’s tough to deliver effective leadership; in essence by the time we have begun to understand how each one believes and functions much of the momentum has run out, and even been replaced by frustration and apathy. And so we go around in circles. It can seem - and has on too many occasions - lacking in any discipline.
Yet I, like many, value being an independent candidate, not having to toe the “party line” on particular policies. Our system has in the past, and can again, produce a stable government during times of challenge. Such stability is not to be dismissed glibly. Plus, we would do well not to replicate the divisive party system of Westminster. So how can we bring the spirit of Guernsey Together into government too? What does the idea of the Guernsey Partnership of Independents offer to bring hope of a better, more collaborative government without losing what is good about consensus?
It empowers the electorate by offering them a more informed choice at the ballot box, stating clearly that these individuals, whilst independently minded on particular policy issues, share the same work ethics and democratic values, thus can work together if elected. We have pledged to keep to these values, read our pledge here.
It keeps us accountable to one another and to the electorate in a more disciplined way. Greater discipline without a party whip. Not perfect, but better than the current system. It means individuals can hold differing views but respect one another, debate civilly, frankly, openly and freely I believe a society is healthier and wiser for it.
It means that the voter still gets to vote for candidates as individuals; so if even not all of the Guernsey Partnership candidates get elected, those that are successful can work with other willing and like-minded individuals (or those from other groupings and parties) to form a coalition more swiftly and effectively than we have after past elections.
It provides a much needed place where new candidates can be identified, trained and mentored. We will always need fresh blood, different ideas, new energy and internal scrutiny from new and younger politicians, but with island-wide voting it is unlikely to be as easy for newcomers to achieve the assistance and profile as in the past.
Guernsey voters will and must continue to vote for individual candidates on the ballot sheet. However through the creation of a values based partnership, the electorate is offered a clearer indication of how effective their choice of candidate will be in working constructively and effectively with others in government, somewhat akin to “open list” systems which have been used in the Netherlands and elsewhere. I believe we can thereby make small positive steps towards greater functionality and discipline, less polarisation, greater focus on the issues rather than the personalities, finding Guernsey consensus solutions again - not perfection as I’ve stated above, but steps worth taking as we seek to move forward together.
I have said in the past that what Guernsey needs is a ‘government of national unity’ - a term generally used for consensus or coalition governments during wartime. We face possibly the most serious threats and challenges to our livelihoods, wellbeing, status, and autonomy for a generation. Let’s make a government of national unity a real possibility.