ONE of the themes picked up yesterday by an Institute of Directors seminar on what next following publication of the Wales Audit Office report on good governance was the role of trust and consensus within the States.
Given the letter published in this newspaper in the summer signed by 27 deputies wanting to retain the current consensual system, it is of substantial significance to most of the Assembly – but what is actually meant by it?
Cynics might see it as the ability of deputies to dabble in the decision-making process, while critics, such as Tribal Consulting and the WAO itself, might point to the ability of the States departments to act pretty much unilaterally.
Whatever it is, it has certainly polarised debate on government reforms into those pro- or apparently anti-consensus and, as one of the IoD panel members made abundantly plain yesterday, certain States members do not react well to people they believe disagree with them.
Yet to most islanders, what’s the fuss? Whatever the system is called, it is clear that in many material ways it does not function as it should. Fix the deficiencies, particularly those identified by the WAO, and worry about what label to put on it afterwards.
Perhaps more fundamentally, however, the current debate has highlighted the lack of trust within the Assembly – lack of teamwork and willingness to let others get on with the task might be a kinder way of describing it – and the absence of collective responsibility.
One of the suggestions yesterday was that chief ministers be elected on the basis of a manifesto and two running mates so islanders know what they are voting for and election provides the legitimacy of a mandate.
Another panel member, Advocate Peter Harwood, spoke of the three Cs – cohesion, cooperation and collective responsibility, which are still all missing from the system.
He could have mentioned a fourth: compromise.
Too many members approach every difference of opinion – even minor ones – as a fight to the death because principles cannot be compromised.
Some, indeed, cannot.
But most times, even the most heated argument can be resolved by a simple test: what’s in the best interests of Guernsey?
Testing use of a fourth ‘C’ word…
ONE of the themes picked up yesterday by an Institute of Directors seminar on what next following publication of the Wales Audit Office report on good governance was the role of trust and consensus within the States.
Given the letter published in this newspaper in the summer signed by 27 deputies wanting to retain the current consensual system, it is of substantial significance to most of the Assembly – but what is actually meant by it?
Cynics might see it as the ability of deputies to dabble in the decision-making process, while critics, such as Tribal Consulting and the WAO itself, might point to the ability of the States departments to act pretty much unilaterally.
Whatever it is, it has certainly polarised debate on government reforms into those pro- or apparently anti-consensus and, as one of the IoD panel members made abundantly plain yesterday, certain States members do not react well to people they believe disagree with them.
Yet to most islanders, what’s the fuss? Whatever the system is called, it is clear that in many material ways it does not function as it should. Fix the deficiencies, particularly those identified by the WAO, and worry about what label to put on it afterwards.
Perhaps more fundamentally, however, the current debate has highlighted the lack of trust within the Assembly – lack of teamwork and willingness to let others get on with the task might be a kinder way of describing it – and the absence of collective responsibility.
One of the suggestions yesterday was that chief ministers be elected on the basis of a manifesto and two running mates so islanders know what they are voting for and election provides the legitimacy of a mandate.
Another panel member, Advocate Peter Harwood, spoke of the three Cs – cohesion, cooperation and collective responsibility, which are still all missing from the system.
He could have mentioned a fourth: compromise.
Too many members approach every difference of opinion – even minor ones – as a fight to the death because principles cannot be compromised.
Some, indeed, cannot.
But most times, even the most heated argument can be resolved by a simple test: what’s in the best interests of Guernsey?
Article posted on 11th November, 2009 - 3.27pm