Memorandum by Bronwen Manby (HON 97)
Much to my astonishment, I have been offered
an OBE in this year's Birthday Honours List, for services to human
rights, especially in Nigeria (until the end of last year, I worked
for Human Rights Watch, and I am still broadly speaking in the
field of human rights in Africa). My views on the honours system
therefore came into rather more stark relief. Accordingly, I am
writing this letter as a minor contribution to your current inquiry
into the honours system.
I found it extremely difficult to decide to
accept or not. My fundamental view is that the system is broken.
There are two main reasons for this: first, the virtually total
lack of transparency in the way in which nominations are made
and decided upon. Secondly, the inclusion of the word "empire"
in the title of the award. Both of these are especially problematic
if you work in the human rights field. Related to the first point
indeed, a result of the lack of transparency— is the sense
of "why me"? I can name half a dozen people who have
done better work than me in my field, and who so far as I know
do not have awards. Of course, I don't know if they have refused;
if they have, then I am more embarrassed at my own failure to
hold the high ground. In the end, I did accept, after consulting
with several Nigerians who thought that the award of a "chieftaincy
title" would bring attention to their issues, and seemed
to think that I deserved some recognition—though as far
as I can see, I'm just doing my job. My parents' pleasure is a
secondary reason. Most of my British friends, and the few colleagues
I consulted in confidence, were as ambivalent as I was about the
decision I should take. Mostly, I just wish I hadn't been asked.
This is presumably not the desired effect.
Accordingly, my recommendations would be:
— The way in which the nomination and
selection process works should be publicly known:
— The criteria on which awards
are based should be published, and based on outstanding contributions
to the public good, not on just doing a paid job. Not that being
paid for the work should exclude an award; just that certain types
of job should not attract awards just for what they are. The person's
peers should see their work as of particularly high worth.
— The members of committees making
the selections in different fields should be publicly known, and
selected themselves from respected people in the field (presumably
those who already have honours). If the decision is being made
by people whose good opinion you value, it becomes a much more
genuine recognition of worth.
— The award should be renamed. I think
the idea of an Order of British Excellence is not a bad one.
— There should be no political input
into the choice of people honoured.
— The number of levels of awards should
be reduced.
— There should be independent oversight
of the system; perhaps by a parliamentary committee.
— Civil servants should not automatically
get awards, but be judged by the same criteria as everyone else.
— Individuals should not be given the
formal option of choosing whether to accept. Of course, in the
end, anyone can send the award back. But the current system requires
you to assess not only the acceptability of the system itself,
but also your own worthiness—which is not something I found
a pleasant experience.
May 2004
|
