Analyse how we attract and choose the ‘right’ deputies from a random cast list of candidates and it’s clear there are significant flaws in the system. So if you want ‘quality’ States members, this is how to do it, says Richard Digard

BY TOMORROW you’ll have a pretty good idea of who you might be voting for next month at the eagerly-awaited – if only to get rid of the current shower – general election of people’s deputies, when the list of candidates is announced.

Chances are you won’t be 100% impressed. We’ve already had one hopeful declaring for chief minister only to discover the public don’t vote for that post. Oops, silly, States members do. Another eagerly announced their bid for the Assembly on the basis that they’d only ever had minimum wage jobs so the £45k or thereabouts would be a decent uplift. Not sure if they’d manage the laptop, but there we are.

Which brings me on to my least favourite topic – discussing the ‘quality’ of candidates, but that’s what the editor has asked for. I’m happy to criticise someone in public office for what they do or don’t do, but having a go on the basis of some perceived shortfall in – well, what exactly? – sits uncomfortably. Do we judge on educational attainment? Pedigree? How they speak? Dress even (no, not you, Deputy Gollop)? Class? See, it’s silly, demeaning and unhelpful.

In case you think I’ve gone all soft, however, it’s clear that some deputies – and therefore by extension, candidates too – are better suited for the role of public office than others. And, by golly, hasn’t that shown over these last five years or so. 

So quite legitimately, you’ll be asking what we do to try to facilitate the best fit between what the role of deputy entails and those who end up doing the job (only qualification necessary: getting more votes than the next wannabe). And in a word, the answer is nothing. Well, a bit. But in practical terms, nothing of consequence. 

As, indeed, you may see tomorrow. By that I mean most of us don’t reply to adverts seeking brain surgeons or astrophysicists. We know we’re not qualified. Yet anywhere between 50 and 150 islanders will be saying, giz us a job, I’m a natural deputy.

But that’s a ‘job’, which, if done properly and with the ability (thanks, Mary) to stay put during States meetings, is demanding, frequently onerous, can carry great responsibility and ideally requires people of experience, judgement and integrity. Yet, as we’re seeing, folk who have no idea of how the States works or what it does are queuing up to give it a go. At your expense. 

Other democracies based on political party systems have pretty robust filtering systems to try to weed out unsuitable or undesirable candidates – and even then aren’t always successful. Here, we make it a point of pride to encourage anyone to stand, for whatever reason, and give them a guaranteed £200,000 or so over the next four years, irrespective of performance or outcomes.

Island-wide voting has removed even the limited scrutiny of those standing, by preventing hustings, meaningful door-knocking or the parish/district knowledge of the candidates themselves.

And in case you think this is irrelevant stuff, look at Jersey. That’s attracted attention because it has the lowest voter turnout among members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, posing a direct threat to the integrity of elections and electoral democracy.

That’s the conclusion of academic specialist Dr Christopher Pich, who’s studying the island, and who told me the other day: ‘From my recent research in Jersey, the low calibre of politicians/candidates was a key barrier to voter engagement. Our research suggested that candidates/politicians were seen as out of touch, inexperienced for taking on roles in Government, unclear what they stood for, and career politicians.’ 

I might try to run this up in more detail another time, but given the fall in those eligible to vote in Guernsey and the expected drop in those attempting to use all 38 votes, we could see bottom of the poll candidates returned with little more than 3,000 crosses. That’s fewer than half Carl Meerveld scraped in with last time round.

Which means that having ‘good quality’ candidates not only matters, it’s essential for democracy and good governance itself. So what’s to be done?

There are two approaches that could be taken. The first is at candidate stage. The second is helping States members when they’re in office – personal development or up-skilling. This last, by the way, is among the Recommended Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures promoted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which we’re members. 

If you were recruiting a deputy (which, in a sense, you are) an employer would probably be looking at personal attributes, call that integrity and ethical judgement, resilience and stamina, commitment to public service, open-mindedness and fairness, courage and independence; skills, meaning analytical and critical thinking, communication, collaboration and negotiation, leadership, time management and organisation; professional and life experience, as in relevant career background, understanding of governance and policy, community involvement, problem-solving and decision-making experience; and knowledge, their understanding of Guernsey’s political and legal system, and awareness of current affairs and local issue.

Phew. That’s an extensive list, but it indicates the seriousness of the role and the consequences of getting the right or wrong individual in post.

As things stand, of course, all you’ll have to go on is the ‘manifesto of death’ booklet that could kill the cat as it plummets from your letterbox. And even then, you’re merely taking their word for it – no opportunity to eyeball the candidate, question them or challenge their ‘qualifications’. As a recruitment exercise, it’s a dead loss. 

If you agree even partially with me on this, then the next conclusion is that attempts already in place to prepare individuals for office start too late. If you want ‘better’ candidates then there should be an induction process that starts before someone can stand. In other words, one which is mandatory and evidence of completion is required as part of the eligibility criteria.

Why? Because voters should know that each candidate has at least a basic understanding of Guernsey’s parliamentary system, how it operates and their role in that; knowledge and understanding of public finances, the island’s economy, how it works and what influences it; and an understanding of their own three contributions as parliamentarian, committee member and constituency representative.

Completion of the programme – there would be no pass or fail – also indicates to potential voters that each candidate is serious enough about seeking public office that they have invested their own time in ‘doing their homework’ and aren’t having a pop because they’re at a loose end or short of a few quid. 

I know many will disagree with me on this, but if being a States member and people’s deputy is a serious role then we should be serious about who and how we put individuals in that position. And, in the absence of serious party politics here, they are all individuals, so electors need to hand pick their candidates with care.

The big question then is, do we really need this level of effort to up-skill candidates and deputies? You’ll know tomorrow.