Memorandum by Tim Lawes (HON 86)
I should like to comment on Question 12 in the
Paper relating to the concept of an "Order of the British
Empire" being outdated and possibly being replaced. My particular
interest in this question is that I was appointed as an Officer
of the Order in 1996.
In considering this issue there are, I think,
two questions that need to be answered. The first is whether there
is any significant demand for a change in the name of the Order,
and secondly, given that there was demand for change, whether
the advantages of changing the name would outweigh the disadvantages.
DEMAND FOR
CHANGE
Despite recent publicity given to individuals
who have refused appointment to the Order because of their negative
perception of its title, the fact remains that for every 1,000
people accepting honours, only 15-20 decline it.
Refusal may be for a number of reasons, one
of which may be unhappiness with the name, but could also be such
as believing oneself to be unworthy of the honour being offered,
or believing that an award would compromise the recipient's independence
or credibility, or not wishing to accept an honour from a government
of a particular political persuasion.
It may of course be that some people who accept
appointment to the Order nonetheless would have preferred it to
be a different name, but are happy to accept the award anyway.
This is a question which could only be answered by questioning
members of the Order, and as far as I know this has never been
done.
It also has to be considered whether there is
dissatisfaction with the name amongst the public as a whole, and
whether this affects the standing of the Order. My experience
is that on the occasions when people consider the question of
honours, adverse concern may be expressed about particular individuals
or groups who happen to receive or not to receive honours, but
not about the name of the Order itself. Indeed, I have never had
anyone say to me that they consider the name to be wrong or inappropriate.
CHANGING THE
NAME
The first point to note is that changing the
name of the Order of the British Empire to some other designation
will effectively mean the termination of the old Order and the
creation of a new one. This may not be the intention of those
who advocate change, but the reality is that the insignia and
other paraphernalia of the Order would have be redesigned (it
bears the inscription "For God and the Empire"), and
the post-nominal letters (ie, MBE, OBE) would be different unless
another wording could be found fitting the existing letters.
If it is perceived by the public that a new
Order is being created, then its unfamiliarity and lack of tradition
will result in it facing the same problem as the Order of the
British Empire after it was founded in 1917 in establishing itself
as a prestigious and worthwhile award. The present Order was widely
declined in its early years (there were 761 refusals in its first
three years), and it was not until the late 1920's that its reputation
stabilised.
Provided that appointments made to it commanded
public approval, a renamed Order would eventually achieve the
esteem in which the present Order is held, but it could take years,
maybe even decades, to get to this position.
The flip-side of a new Order being created is
the question of the position of the 80,000-odd members of the
present Order. It may well be that they will be offered the insignia
and trappings of the new Order, but many will be uncomfortable
with this "air-brushing" of their original award and
will refuse to accept the change. In this case, they will find
themselves belonging to a disappearing and increasingly unrecognised
group—which is exactly the opposite of the reason they were
given awards in the first place, that is, for their work and achievements
to be recognised.
The second problem is what the name should be
changed to. Since the Order would be awarded for a wide range
of achievement and service, paid and voluntary, civilian and military,
its title would need to be necessarily non-specific, but also
commanding respect.
Given that it would be desirable for the new
Order to exist long enough (ie, some decades) to achieve a measure
of worth and esteem, it would also have to be a title that would
stand the passage of time and not become subject to the same objections
as "Order of the British Empire".
Looking at possible political and constitutional
developments over the next 50 years (in particular, Scotland achieving
independence), I do not believe it is safe to assign any new title
referring to "Britain" or "British" or "United
Kingdom" to the Order without the risk that it will in due
course become as obsolete as "British Empire".
Titles containing the obvious words "Merit"
and "Honour" would be confused with the existing Orders
of Merit and of the Companions of Honour. Those referring to "Community
Service" or "Voluntary Service" would not encompass
the full range of activities the present Order is awarded for.
CONCLUSION
The Order of the British Empire has built up
a substantial weight of tradition and history in the 87 years
of its existence, and appointment to it is seen by most people
as a prestigious and worthwhile honour.
The title is self-evidently anachronistic, but
as with many other institutions in this country that give Britain
its distinctive character, I do not believe there is any great
desire for it to be altered. On the contrary, in a time of rapid
and accelerating change, many look to the permanence of such parts
of national life as a reassurance.
The price of such a change would do far more
to bring the honours system into disrepute than leaving the name
as it is.
Tim Lawes
April 2004
| 
