Some Thought Experiments in Collective Responsibility

In 2004, I penned this piece, which never actually saw the light of day. Now that the Council of Ministers have finally moved to "collective responsibility" (in 2014), it is perhaps more pertinent than when it was first mooted as part of Ministerial government - something that actually never happened in 2005 but was supposed to!

I'm not wholly convinced that the new "collective responsibility" deals with all these scenarios.

Some Thought Experiments in Collective Responsibility

The States change to a Ministerial style of Government will involve the concept of “Collective Responsibility”. However, it seems that this is being pushed through "in principle" without spelling out the fine print, and looking at how it would work in problem scenarios.

As I understand it, the basic principle of Collective Responsibility as proposed can be understood as follows:

· A person might grant that collectives can bear responsibility for a state of affairs even in situations where one or more of its members fail to bear responsibility for the same state of affairs.

· In these situations some members of the collective may play a dominant role and others a subordinate role in bringing about a state of affairs.

· While those who play a subordinate role may not do enough to warrant the ascription of responsibility for this state of affairs, they are indirectly tied to the responsibility by their membership in a collective which is responsible for this state of affairs.

I would like to consider this with respect to three thought experiments.

Scenario One:

Let us say a minister was part of a Government.

A majority agreed with a decision to pass laws widening access to conditions for abortions, or altering the time scale of abortion, or permitting genetic experimentation on foetal material (or such material to be sent from Jersey for experimentation).

Would the minister be able to exercise a right of conscience to abstain or object without resigning?
How would the "right of conscience" be worked out in principal?

Scenario Two

A member is elected on a particular mandate. They are elected by the States as a minister.

The government later decides to take actions which contradict specific and important policies from their mandate.

Would the minister be able to exercise a right of conscience to abstain or object without resigning - despite the fact that this contradicts the government’s “collective responsibility”?

After all, they could ague that they have a moral duty to keep faith with the electorate.

Scenario Three

A member is elected on a particular mandate. They are elected by the States as a minister.

They are a deputy. They are asked by their Parishioners to take a petition to the States objecting to a Government decision/policy which adversely effects the Parish.

Would the minister be able to exercise a right of conscience to abstain or object without resigning? Would they be able to take the petition to the States

Conclusion

It seems to me that what is needed is not Collective Responsibility as a blanket system for agreements, but details of circumstances where a minister can legitimately abstain or declare an opposing viewpoint, and orderly procedures for doing so in such a manner as not to disrupt good government.

For example, warning ministerial colleagues that you disagree, and as a matter of conscience, you will be objecting in the States.

However, what is needed is to consider and test the proposals against thought experiments. I have given three examples, and clearly many more can be considered.

The lack of such considerations suggests undue haste, and problems arising because not enough attention has been given to the "fine print".