THE issue of what to call the heads of States departments is back on the agenda. Should it be the grand and new-fangled title of ‘minister’, the traditional one of ‘president’ or should we just ‘call a chair a chair’.

It’s not the most important issue facing the States, but it’s more significant than at first seems. Give someone a title implying they’ve got more power than they really have and before long they’ll start demanding those powers.

Give someone a pompous title and before long they’ll become – well, pompous.

Any title should be an honest, simple description of what the individual does and what his/her powers actually are. How do the options measure up?

The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘minister’ as ‘head of a government department’.

The trouble is that there are different power structures within government departments in different countries.

In the UK – from where this dictionary hails – there’s a single minister in charge of departments. S/he’ll have junior ministers working with him but the real power is that minister’s alone.

Tell someone from outside Guernsey that you are a government minister and he/she will automatically assume you wield these sort of powers. Not that you simply chair a departmental committee, consisting of five political members with equal voting rights. That’s clearly not what the world understands by the term ‘minister’. To that extent, it’s a lie.

‘President’ simply means ‘one who presides’ – a term which covers a huge range of roles, from head of state to head of a local sporting club or Women’s Institute.

It’s also the traditional title for those heading up States departments in Guernsey.

It’s an honest title that reflects the fact that the person concerned presides over departmental committee meetings.

Of course, if we put the title ‘president’ before our leading politicians’ names then it would be even more pompous than ‘minister’.

However, that never happened and wouldn’t in future. For example, it was ‘Deputy Roger Berry, president of the Board of Administration’, not ‘President Roger Berry’. Just as well, or I would have served on Housing under President Lincoln.

‘Chairman’ is also an honest title but it’s very English and brings with it all the problems of gender.

Is a female head of department a chairman, a chairwoman or just a chair?

No such problems with our traditional, Guernsey title of president. In retrospect, we were daft to dump such an appropriate title for the misleading alternative of ‘minister’, particularly at the exact time we were rejecting ministerial government.

One snag is that while titles such as ‘Housing president’ or ‘Environment president’ seem natural and right, that of ‘president of the Policy Council’ seems rather contrived. Is that because the whole post is contrived?

In genuine systems of ministerial government you clearly need a first/chief/ prime minister – but we don’t have such a system. Perhaps we invented the role simply because, as we were pretending to have ministers, a pretend chief minister was needed to complete the charade.

If we go back to departmental presidents, then this largely empty post becomes redundant.

The obvious alternative is for the Treasury and Resources president to chair the Policy Council, represent the island externally and be the recognised ‘political leader’ within the States. After all, the council’s main role should be coordinating high-level, strategic, policy formation and that simply can’t be separated from the cash and other resources needed to make that strategy achievable.

An added benefit would be no longer having two leaders, both with a central role in deciding fiscal and economic policy, but with possibly very different views on those policy areas.

Ever since the structure was devised, this was always a potential fracture line waiting to open.

With the present incumbents, that unfortunate situation seems to have arrived much earlier than anybody expected.

This must be a nightmare for those working as financial or economic advisors to the States.

To which master do they hold allegiance?

Is T&R in charge of high-level ‘money matters’ or is it the Policy Council’s ‘fiscal and economic steering group’?

Other States members must be equally confused, and heaven help business leaders or ordinary islanders.

Worse, the current situation destroys the very external clarity this whole pompous pretence of ‘ministers’ was supposed to create. Sources in Jersey and the Isle of Man say they are utterly puzzled by the mixed messages they are receiving over Guernsey’s fiscal policy.

‘Zero-10 will be significantly revised,’ says the T&R minister.

‘Oh no it won’t,’ says his chief minister.