Twenty Years at the Summit of the Moral High Ground

Twenty years is a long time.

When I published the first articles on this blog back in 2005, I genuinely believed that politics could make the world a better place. Like many people entering public life for the first time, I believed that if enough honest people became involved, if enough good ideas were debated, and if enough poor decisions were challenged, then society could gradually be improved.

Looking back, I smile at that optimism.

It is one of the privileges of youth to believe that problems are simple, that institutions exist to fulfil the purposes for which they were created, and that those entrusted with public office are motivated principally by a desire to serve the public.

Experience has a habit of challenging comfortable assumptions.

Over the past twenty years this blog has wandered across many different subjects. There have been articles about economics, taxation, constitutional reform, libertarian philosophy, civil liberties, Jersey politics, government policy and the occasional historical diversion. At first glance they may appear to have little in common.

Looking back, however, I can see that they were all asking the same question.

How should power be exercised, and what happens when it is not properly restrained?

That question has become the defining theme of this blog.

When I first entered public life, I imagined that the principal challenge lay in persuading elected politicians to make better decisions. Over time, my perspective changed. I came to understand that elected politicians are only one part of government. Behind every minister stands a permanent administrative structure responsible for interpreting, implementing and enforcing public policy.

That realisation fundamentally altered my understanding of politics.

More importantly, personal experience forced me to confront another uncomfortable truth. Human institutions are no different from human beings. They make mistakes. That, in itself, is inevitable. What matters is how they respond when those mistakes are exposed.

It is here that my thinking changed most profoundly.

I gradually came to believe that institutions possess a natural tendency towards self-preservation. Decisions are often defended because they are institutional decisions, not necessarily because they are correct. Procedures can become more important than justice. Reputation can become more important than truth. Protecting the organisation can become easier than acknowledging error.

From a personal perspective, this can feel profoundly frustrating.

When you believe an administrative decision is wrong, yet discover how difficult it is to persuade the system to reconsider it, it is easy to conclude that the institution has ceased to act as a public servant and has instead become an adversary. When the mechanisms intended to provide accountability appear reluctant to disturb administrative decisions, confidence in the system inevitably begins to erode.

Whether that perception is entirely justified is for readers to decide.

It is, however, the perspective that my own experiences have given me, and it explains why this blog has evolved as it has.

The subjects have changed.

The underlying philosophy has not.

What began as an interest in liberty gradually became an interest in constitutional government. Constitutional government became an interest in public administration. Public administration became an interest in justice. Today, those interests have converged into a single question: how should power be exercised in a free society, and what safeguards are necessary to prevent its misuse?

This blog is therefore entering a new chapter.

It will continue to discuss Jersey, because Jersey is where my own experiences have been formed. It will continue to discuss politics where politics influences justice. But its primary focus will now be the relationship between power, accountability and the rule of law.

Over the coming weeks I intend to set out the principles that have emerged from twenty years of writing, observation and experience. They are not intended as immutable truths. They are simply the conclusions to which my own journey has led me.

Among them are ideas such as:

• That the misuse of power is often presented as benevolent.

• That institutions naturally tend towards self-preservation.

• That genuine public service places the citizen before the convenience of the institution.

• That justice must never become an instrument of politics.

• That liberty is rarely lost suddenly, but gradually.

• That every expansion of power demands an equal expansion of accountability.

• That good intentions never remove the need for scrutiny.

• That the rule of law exists to protect the individual from the state.

• That institutions reveal their true character when confronted with their own mistakes.

• That incentives often shape behaviour more powerfully than mission statements.

• That experience is the greatest teacher.

• That power always seeks legitimacy.

• That complexity often becomes the ally of unaccountable authority.

• And that justice begins with the humility to admit error.

These principles will not answer every question.

But they will provide the philosophical foundation upon which every future article on this blog will be built.

The title of this blog remains unchanged.

From the Summit of the Moral High Ground.

After twenty years, however, I have finally come to understand what that summit really is.

It is not a place from which to look down upon others.

It is a place from which to look clearly at power itself.