The Tribune

THE environment is a major issue in Britain. As the science in relation to climate change develops rapidly and the fearmongers become more vocal, awareness has grown of the consequences and problems of industrial pollution, nuclear waste, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Moreover, as a result of other recent issues like “Mad Cow” disease and the GM (genetically modified) food controversy, the British public has become increasingly sensitive to environmental issues, thus turning the nation in to one of the so-called eco-warriors.

For many years, campaign groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have been putting pressure on governments and businesses to introduce stricter standards for environmental protection; and, more recently, they have been joined by a new breed of such eco-warriors. This type of protester uses direct group action to target opponents through non-violent - but often illegal - actions. Their methods include disruption of road-building projects and action against environmental pollution and global capitalism more widely; for example, campaigning to keep cars and trucks out of city streets and to reserve them for pedestrians and cyclists. To achieve maximum publicity, the protesters indulge in group sit-downs and conduct slow marches in order to cause massive disruption. Their claimed overall aim is climate change mitigation, Nature conservation and environmental protection while their declared more detailed objective is to stop “our criminal government from taking us down a path to societal collapse and destroying the conditions that make human life possible”.

There is insufficient space today to write in any detail about the UK government’s contribution and commitment to a new deal known as the Glasgow Climate Pact in 2021 aimed at staving off dangerous climate change by keeping to the global warming limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Today’s protesters regard such action as inadequate and ineffective. But it is nonetheless important for governments to recognize generally that in a democracy protests can play a positive and crucial role. The right to protest is essential because this brings issues to public attention and may start a debate about them. It is a form of the right to exercise freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly. It is a means for people to express dissatisfaction about current situations and assert demands for social, political and economic change. Protests are part of a healthy and vibrant democracy because they give a voice to the people and a method of highlighting injustice as well as drawing attention to the need to hold governments and institutions to account for their actions. Thus, they are a way of expressing dissent and influencing governments.

All this has come to the fore again recently in Britain because of the activities of the global environmental movement called Extinction Rebellion. Formed in 2018, it has its headquarters in the UK with the stated aim of using non-violent civil disobedience to persuade governments to “act justly” on climate and ecological issues. After supporters of this group participated in a mass sit-down protest in central London last year, Extinction Rebellion joined forces last month with two other groups – Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, which demands an end to all fossil fuel projects – in organising a weekend of protest called “The Big One” when some 50,000 environmental protesters were mobilised in a sit-down and slow march in the city. This caused major disruption including interference with emergency vehicles like ambulances and fire engines.

Then, on April 29, Just Stop Oil eco-zealots again brought traffic to a standstill as they marched slowly in central London in support of two activists - calling them political prisoners - who were recently jailed for scaling a major bridge over the Thames in the east of the city that caused many hours of gridlock on the surrounding roads which had to be closed.

In such circumstances of disorder and huge disruption it comes as no surprise that the government has now been stung into action. Public opinion, usually based on common sense, has persuaded officialdom that in an ordered democratic country there can be no justification – however worthy a cause may be - for civil disobedience at such a level that it violates the rights of millions to go about their everyday lives peacefully and without interference. The right to protest should always be respected but there have to be reasonable limits. The exercise of that right is unacceptable if it affects the rights of millions of others to move around freely and makes their lives a misery.

In an effort to beef up broader police powers to tackle protests a new Public Order Bill passed through the UK parliament recently and will soon become law. The government wants to define when police can step in to stop, in the words of the Home Secretary, “selfish protesters from wreaking havoc in people’s everyday lives”. So this legislation introduces new criminal offences for causing serious disruption and permits the police to clear the roads of protesters.

It will come as music to the ears of many that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner recently expressed his determination to deal robustly with anything going beyond lawful and reasonable protest that creates serious disruption in London. In my view, this comes none too soon since previously the police have been hampered in dealing with widespread protests designed to persuade the government to undertake new measures to deal with the damaging effects of climate change.

As always in such situations, a reasonable and sensible balance has to be struck -- and it is clear that a majority believe that in a civilised society a fundamental requirement should be to protect and enforce, as a priority, the public’s right to go about its lawful daily business without obstruction or hindrance. As one UK newspaper put it succinctly, extremist eco-zealots have no mandate from the people to promote disorder in the name of their radical agenda. If more of them felt the long arm of the law, most decent citizens would cheer.

GOVERNMENT MINISTERS MUST HAVE AUTHORITY

After writing last week about the resignation of Britain’s deputy prime minister Dominic Raab over bullying allegations, I return to the subject today by examining the roles of ministers and of civil servants as permanent government officials.

In the Westminster system, there is a peculiar relationship between civil servants and ministers, who are their political masters, because everything that goes on in the department concerned becomes the responsibility of the minister – and it is ministers who are accountable to parliament when something goes wrong. Civil servants work within a constitutional framework which requires them to be politically impartial while being accountable to ministers of the government currently in power. They should also work within a range of ethical and other constraints which likewise require them to be honest and co-operative. They provide continuity as ministers come and go according to the whim of the electorate.

As is well known but worth repeating, ministers make policy in accordance with their government’s objectives and are responsible and accountable for it while civil servants advise them how to implement that policy and then carry out that function on the minister’s behalf. In the past in Britain, the civil service has been known occasionally to have acted in the public interest as a bulwark or a counter weight force against the extreme dogma of the government of the day. But the historical evidence is that that has been rare since it undermines the essence of a representative democracy.

The importance of the accountability of elected politicians to parliament should not be underestimated for it provides protection against totalitarianism.

In the fallout from a row in 2020 at the heart of the British government involving differences between the then Home Secretary and her permanent secretary, I commented in this column that ministers are public figures who are widely known in the country and are subject to intense parliamentary and press scrutiny and criticism. This is essential as a check on the actions of a government and an important element of democracy because, if policy were instead in the hands of an appointed meritocracy in the shape of unknown – and in some cases unidentifiable - permanent civil servants without oversight or direction by ministers, the public might be unable to determine who was responsible and therefore accountable.

So most people accept that for democracy to work the decisions of ministers must prevail. However, human nature being what it is, there is also the danger of the upper echelons of the civil service becoming entrenched, unaccountable and self-important bureaucrats who fail to exercise political neutrality and impartiality. They may also regard themselves as more important than elected politicians and ministers whom they see as transient beings liable to be reshuffled or voted out at the next election. Furthermore, some say that, in Britain’s modern society of sometimes inept political parties or governments and a Left-leaning, anti-Brexit civil service, there is a danger that officials may become answerable to no one while they follow their own course. So it is perhaps hardly surprising that some ministers become frustrated and irritated when their authority is challenged as they try to drive through reform and change.

In such circumstances, most people consider it remains in the best interests of the public that ministers should be strong and determined in carrying out their function. But the enforced resignation of Dominic Raab may henceforward make it harder for ministers in London to make tough decisions for fear of facing bullying accusations. In any fast-moving crisis – for example, most recently the evacuation of British nationals from Sudan - the public has the right to expect swift decisions by ministers irrespective of the sensitivities of those working around them. Meanwhile, here in The Bahamas which follows the Westminster model, there might just be some useful lessons from these developments.

All this was parodied in the satirical and hugely popular BBC TV series called “Yes, Minister” in which career officials attempt to thwart the wishes of elected government ministers. It depicts civil servants as manipulating and undermining their political masters who are looking for immediate praise and good publicity while they themselves are only interested in power. It was a brilliant series – but for some people a bit too close to the truth for comfort.

ONLY DAYS TO GO UNTIL CORONATION

By all accounts, the carnival atmosphere amidst much expectation and excitement throughout the nation in the lead-up to King Charles’ coronation on Saturday is said to be exceptional. Although the ceremony at Westminster Abbey in the heart of London will be scaled down compared to the crowning of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in 1953, this coronation will involve all the magnificent pomp and pageantry that Britain is famous for, and the event will be watched by a global audience. Reportedly, it will be the largest military ceremonial operation in seventy years while it is also the first major such ceremonial occasion since The Queen’s funeral in September last year.

As well as the actual coronation itself, there will be celebrations in all corners of the Union with gun salutes in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to mark the moment the King is crowned. In London, the streets of the West End have been covered with Union Jacks, and high street shops everywhere are getting in to the swing of things with special coronation displays. It is claimed that millions up and down the country will enjoy street parties, and, according to the latest figures, more than 3,000 special celebratory events are being planned in most parts of the kingdom.

As always on important national occasions, there is no shortage of enthusiasm on the part of individuals. This is epitomised by royal superfans already camping out on The Mall – and at least one has been spotted with a large tarpaulin already attached to the railings to keep those concerned dry and from where they will have a front seat to watch the King’s procession as it passes by enroute to Westminster Abbey.

Amidst all this happy preparation, there has been little publicity about the famous Stone of Scone which will be used for the forthcoming coronation after being transported from Scotland to London. It is also known as the Stone of Destiny and is seen as a sacred object. The experts say it is a rectangular block of pale yellow sandstone that has been used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland and England. It was originally kept at Scone Abbey in Perthshire in Scotland but was seized by English forces in the 13th century and taken to Westminster Abbey.

As historians recount, the Stone is also famous for being stolen in 1950 by a group of four Scottish students who broke into the Abbey and took it back to Scotland. It was later returned to London before being sent back again permanently by the British Government in 1996 where it is now kept at Edinburgh Castle with the Scottish Crown Jewels. This escapade was either lauded or condemned depending on one’s individual viewpoint, but it was certainly a daring exploit which attracted much publicity at the time. For those who might be interested, the incident was made in to a film in 2008.