A Knighthood's Tale
The British honours system has taken a bit of a knocking of late. First came the vitriolic attack on it - and simultaneous rejection of an OBE - by the poet Benjamin Zephaniah last November.
The following month, there was published a leaked document revealing some of the more famous individuals to have turned down an honour of some form in the past. These included such household names as David Bowie and French & Saunders. At the same time, scandal broke amidst claims from Professor Colin Blakemore, head of the Medical Research Council, that he had been overlooked for an honour because of his support for controversial animal research techniques. All of which has meant that the influential Commons public administration committee is presently investigating whether the honours system in Britain needs to be overhauled.
Two questions must therefore be asked of the honours system today: "Is it necessary?" and, if so, "How should the present system be changed?" On the first point, the answer is probably "No" - there are a number of problems with the notion of centrally-awarded titles.
Honours are a largely arbitrary, often elitist means of recognising achievement within a country. Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that the achievements of some 'ordinary' people can, and do, get acknowledged by any such system, there will always exist a tendency to reward primarily those who are already famous.
There is a natural association between fame and social importance, and given that an honours system is intended to designate the latter, it is inevitable that it will tend to reflect the social hierarchy already present. This is where the origins of our honours system lie - though in the past the social hierarchy it reflected was determined more by wealth than (as is now the case) fame.
Yet there seems something highly problematic about rewarding those who have achieved fame and fortune. Although the lifestyle of a world-renowned footballer is one to which many would aspire (though admittedly not all), it seems that awarding honours to those who successfully become famous or wealthy is akin to rewarding those who merely seek to follow their natural selfish desires. Essentially, we are saying to people: "Well done, you've made a lot of money - have a medal."
That such an attitude is hardly likely to inspire greater community spirit and selflessness is pretty much self-evident.
It may reasonably be argued, though, that all that this implies is that honours systems tend to be misguided. Rather than seeking to convey added respect upon those who already have respect coming out of their ears, honours should be awarded to those who partake in community-based or charity projects that generate little in the way of social or financial 'reward' for those involved. In fairness to the British system, there is certainly a drive to this effect at present, with MBEs in particular regularly handed out to people who have quietly devoted their lives to unglamorous, ill-acknowledged causes.
Yet even an honours system devoted entirely to the recognition of such people would seem something of an indulgence. Unless a significant number of additional awards were handed out each year, only a tiny proportion of those who would deserve recognition would gain any form of honour. Its only effect would be to alleviate the guilt of those who opted not to pursue such selfless career lines. An honours system is not necessary in any society.
This said, however, we should be resigned to accepting that the British honours system is here to stay - the question is how might it be changed to bring it into the 21st century?
It seems, for starters, that the association of the honours system and the British Empire should be dropped. Aside from being somewhat risible that we are still (by designating individuals 'Member of the Order of the British Empire') implying that Britain has an Empire beyond a few rocks in the Atlantic and Indian oceans, it is deeply offensive to many that titles associated with the often racist and oppressive entity that was the Empire are seen as 'honours'.
As Benjamin Zephaniah put it: "I have been fighting against the legacy of empire all my life... Anybody who has thought of giving me this OBE can't have read my work." Furthermore, the ludicrously pompous nature of the titles is hardly conducive to people taking the whole thing seriously. When Billy Connolly is officially a 'Commander of the British Empire', we are in danger of becoming a laughing stock.
The fact that honours are officially handed out by the Queen effectively excludes a large proportion of the population from receiving them. Around 20 per cent of the British public believes in abolishing the monarchy for the sake of a republic - and a high percentage of these tend to take a very principled stand about it. Thus many within the country simply feel it would be wrong to accept an honour, on the grounds that doing so would imply acceptance of the monarchy. Hence honours are handed out to people on the grounds both of their having contributed to society and of their accepting the established political system.
In effect, we are saying that those who wish to make a principled political stand on a particular issue are not able to gain an official position of respect within society. This attitude seems out of place given the long-standing commitment to freedom of political expression we have in Britain.
The monarchical link with the honours system should hence be dropped. But even such a radical step would still leave it a system emcumbered with great political difficulties. For the aspect of the honours system that most would take issue with is, undoubtedly, the influence of central government. Charges of 'cronyism' and the politically motivated awarding of titles are inevitably always rife. Often one would be forgiven for thinking that an OBE is part of any high-ranking civil servant's pension plan, whilst the number of multi-millionaires (and potential party donors?) who receive knighthoods is truly astonishing - it seems they must be one of the most socially-conscious, selfless sectors of British society.
The selection panel itself is 85 per cent male, 96 per cent white, and has an average age of 60. Each member is appointed by the government. If the problems with the present system are not evident from these simple statistics, one must have tremendous (and misguided) faith in the ability of an unrepresentative panel to award honours to the most truly deserving individuals .
The honours selection process must be changed and be made more transparent (and thus free from party-political interference). Without this, the entire notion of an honours system is a flawed one.
It is clear that Britain is unlikely to ditch its honours system entirely in the foreseeable future. However, the present system must be reformed - if we are going to have "honours", it should at least be ensured that it is an honour to receive them.
3rd Apr 2004