IT WILL be very interesting to see if there’s any move for Guernsey to follow Jersey and introduce an ‘open election’ for chief minister.

Of course, the two positions are very different – Jersey really does have a chief minister – but the issues surrounding how they are elected are very similar. So, what are the arguments in favour of open voting versus the traditional method of secret ballot?

Before tackling that question, there’s one other aspect of the Jersey decision that is worth commenting on. It’s curious that the election of all ministers and committee chairmen/members will continue to be by secret ballot except for the position of chief minister. Whichever method of election is best, you would think that the arguments would stay true for all the posts within government. The danger of bringing in a different electoral system for the chief minister alone is that it suggests a sort of presidential style of politics that doesn’t exist in the islands.

A strong argument could be advanced that in both Jersey and Guernsey, the position of Treasury and Resources minister has been far more influential over the last political term than that of chief minister. So why not have open elections for that post as well? But then it seems logical to extend it to the other ministers, chairmen and members. In fact, logic dictates an all-or-nothing approach. Either keep the current secret ballots for all positions – including chief minister – or for none. But which way to jump? I think there is a tension between the principles involved and the practical considerations.

The principle is straightforward. The decisions our representatives make in electing their fellow deputies to key posts within government are vital. They can influence the whole direction of travel of the States for the following four years. They are making those decisions on our behalf, so why the heck shouldn’t we know how they have voted?

Without that openness, electors could ask candidates at the hustings who they will support for chief minister or T&R minister and the answer could affect their vote, but they have no way of checking the honesty of the replies they receive.

It would also help to cut out some sickening hypocrisy. For instance, I well remember being given a real earbashing by one deputy for successfully proposing Laurie Morgan as chief minister. He was very upset at that outcome. Yet soon afterwards he was smarming around the newly elected CM and giving the clear impression that he must have voted for him.

Open ballots would stop that sort of two-faced nonsense.

On the other hand, it would tend to increase political cabals and furtive networking within the States. They would also favour the pushy candidates at the expense of the quietly competent.

You can just imagine the run-up to internal elections, with the more brazen candidates and their henchmen rabidly phoning up all their fellow deputies pressing for pledges of support. Of course, they can do that now, but it’s far less effective because members can quietly renege on those promises. With open elections they may feel obliged to stick to a foolish pledge, given under pressure, even if they have genuinely changed their mind and favour another candidate.

It could also change voting patterns, with those wanting a seat on a department voting for who they think is most likely to win rather than who they really think should be minister. Why? Because the new minister will then be more likely to propose them for his team.

I know all these practical arguments say more about the perceived weakness of elected members than the inherent virtues of secret ballots, but it’s best to deal with the world as it really is. The principled arguments in favour of changing are probably unanswerable. But if the change is made, we should be ready for the States of Guernsey to become a more tribal place, with more energy being put into high-pressure electioneering and less into selling your candidature through serious strategic policies.

Can I also make a plea? If there is going to be any change to the way Guernsey elects its ministers and committee members, can the States please take the opportunity to introduce mid-term elections as well? If it doesn’t, we will see able but unknown candidates being voted in next April only to serve four years with little responsibility because their colleagues weren’t aware of their talents at the time the jobs were allocated.Open questions