Subscriber OnlyLetters

The downsides of an honours system

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it

Letters to the Editor. Illustration: Paul Scott
The Irish Times - Letters to the Editor.

Sir, – In the post-Olympic excitement, the question of an honours system for this country has raised its head again (Letters, August 26th). One of the achievements of this State in its last 100 years or so is not to have developed such a system and I firmly believe that there should not be one. There are two sides to this, that of the recipients and that of the “donors”, ie the government of the day. In the case of the successful Olympians, are they not sufficiently rewarded? Should those who performed their personal best be rewarded? Should those who did well enough to go to the Olympic Games get a lesser award? Widening the remit, it is perhaps easier to suggest who should not get “honours”. Any current or former politician of whatever hue for “services” to the State and any current or former civil or public servant for work associated with their service, as they have been sufficiently well rewarded during their tenure and upon retirement. This includes teachers, lollipop ladies, doctors, nurses and such. The Defence Forces have their own system. The world of academia has Royal Irish Academy membership or honorary degrees from the universities for deserving local, national and international worthies. The artists have Aosdána. The world of business and philanthropy is a more difficult area as those of us who remember the time of Ansbacher and associated scandals, when an honours system was last proposed for the great and the good, do not wish to repeat that narrow escape. The universities take care of that aspect usually.

The “government” side is also fraught with difficulty and needless expense. First, to gain and retain any credibility, the system would obviously have to be independent of government. Thus an independent secretariat would have to be established with a director and numerous associated underlings whose number will only grow, perpetuation of itself being the first duty of a bureaucracy. There will have to be a supervisory board or regulator, again with its secretariat. There will have to be a vetting system for candidates to allay fears of embarrassment. This vetting will have to be secret, thus wasting more resources and increasing the reach of the “security state”. A restricted system of nominating candidates would have to be established. As for the call for a citizens’ assembly to consider an honours system, this is simply a “cut-out” for politicians not willing to discuss issues in the public forum they are paid to attend and contribute to.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. – Yours, etc,

ROBERT TOWERS,

READ MORE

Monkstown,

Co Dublin.