The Judge RANTS!
Date: 14/06/03
Honours Without Profit
Well, there's another busload. The latest 'Honours List' came out
last night.
Perhaps it only matters if you think it does. As a
republican, I can't claim that the world would end (or even vaguely
wobble upon its axis) if there were ever any real surprises in it. But
the whole process contains within it the kernel of the true nature of
the society we inhabit.
Firstly, the 'royal' thing. We know that, with few exceptions, Clan
Windsor has very little to do with who gets what. The nomination
process takes place entirely within the upper reaches of the Civil
Service (which may be why so many denizens of that stratum of public
administration end up being 'gonged'), and the decision-making is as
opaque and secretive as it ever was (are we allowed to know who
is on the committee which makes those decisions? It's probably a
secret).
The government has been quick to point out that over half of the
awards (52%) have been given as a result of public nominations. Yet, if
you look at which ribbons went where, you can see that this has changed
nothing. The knighthoods and senior awards in the by-now ludicrous
Order of The British Empire have still gone to the same categories of
people : 'luvvies', pop-stars, kickers-of-balls-of-wind and that
curious category of businessmen rewarded for 'services to charity' (I
know the Labour Party has fallen on hard times, economically, but not
even this has been enough to earn it charitable status - at least, not
yet).
And the rest? The home-helps, the lollipop ladies, the fundraisers
for local causes, the dedicated schoolteachers and nurses. Well, as
ever, they've been given the tin stars, the MBEs. This has replaced the
old British Empire Medal as the repository of that official insult, "We
think you deserve something, but this is all we think you
deserve".
More than half the awards numerically may have gone to
'ordinary' members of society, but when the status of the
awards is factored in, the overwhelming value (in terms of social cachet)
is still grossly skewed towards celebrities and favour-buyers.
So, what to do about it? Perhaps it would be best to scrap it
altogether, possibly encouraging local communities and interest groups
at large to make their own awards. At least we may then judge the
recipients far more clearly on the basis of who is making the decision
(and on what grounds) than can be ascertained at present. This would
certainly be preferable to another alternative; namely, having the
whole thing sponsored by some tabloid rag where popularity
would be the over-riding consideration.
One thing may be said for certain: it will not be until the nurses
and teachers get the knighthoods and the over-paid and over-hyped end
up with the lids off baked-bean tins that we will know that the system
has been dragged into the real world of the twenty-first century.
