To its supporters, the honours system is an important, traditional feature of the British way of life and a fitting way of acknowledging the achievements of people of all backgrounds. For its critics, it has for centuries provided a disreputable means of inducing, sustaining or rewarding service, first to monarchs and more recently to politicians. In recent years, efforts have been made both to democratise the system and to protect it from abuse. Anyone can now nominate a fellow citizen for an award and the Cabinet Office describes its primary purpose as being to recognise people who will "usually have made life better for other people or be outstanding at what they do". In 2011, in the wake of a series of scandals about the award of peerages in return for donations to political parties, checks were introduced in an attempt to break the link. But in August 2012, the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee called for a wholesale review, claiming that the Government's "lack of willingness to clarify and open up the process" was damaging public confidence. Does twenty-first century Britain needs an honours system? If so, should we devise a new set of awards which reflects contemporary society rather than our imperial past? Who should receive them and who should decide? Do we need an effective system for withdrawing honours from those who are subsequently disgraced? Or, does the old system remain fit for purpose? Two seasoned campaigners debate the issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment