Why it's no longer an honour

THERE is something very British about the New Year's Honours list, something reminiscent of being awarded a star or a badge at school. Among those who are mentioned in the list there has been much speculation over the rights and wrongs of accepting a gong. Whether this arises from opinions regarding the monarchy, the Empire or a single issue such as the war in Iraq, the refuseniks surely demonstrate the way in which the British can be whipped up into a republican frenzy at the drop of a hat.

To be seen to reject an honour has provided a platform for those who consider they have a valid reason to oppose the giving out of prizes. Ever since the Queen was dragged back to the Palace after her lack of response to the death of her daughter-in-law, the British now ask more questions and demand answers to matters of principle.

However, the question arises year after year as to whether the so-called honours have any place in 21st century Britain. As a society, we are less deferential, less hierarchical and more cynical. Such honours are increasingly a cause of curiosity rather than celebration. Those who accept a title or reward for their genuine achievements must surely feel devalued in the light of their contemporaries in the list, many of whom are simply compromising with the establishment in a tactical move they may subsequently regret.

I do not believe that the honours system is capable of justifying itself for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the process is not open and transparent. Senior civil servants have a dominant role in the decision-making process. People who are not elected or accountable make the murky, secretive committee decisions which are key as to who is the beneficiary of an award.

There is an obvious political dimension to this machine where peerages are concerned, and the House of Lords as a debating chamber is being revised.

I recognise that some of the discussion need not be made public, but the process should be democratic in order that the political reasoning behind who benefits and those who do not (such as in the case of Professor Colin Blackmore) is seen to be evident.

Further, the reference to Empire in the various awards is something which we should arguably question, as highlighted by the refusenik Benjamin Zephaniah who fashionably returned the offer of a gong. To be publicly acknowledged is one thing, but to then reject the award has led some to a higher state of recognition.

There has been a lot of moralising about imperialism and how the expansion of the British Empire was a great asset to those nations who were occupied, in terms of human rights, democracy and justice. Those who question imperial ambition are deemed to be part of a "long march through the institutions" and this is at the heart of the debate over whether to accept or reject an honour.

Those who object to the system are no longer generalised as Marxist revolutionaries, but now include all those who promote a more accountable and logical system which empowers rather than baffles.

However, those symbols of Empire, the MBE, OBE and CBE are caked in blood. The first casualty of imperialism is often that of human rights (as witnessed by the US treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which is an embarrassment to all those in government who seek to defend human rights). To accept such an award is to buy into various governmental decisions which, for some, may be a step too far.

Moreover, civil servants are traditionally the major beneficiaries of the New Year's Honours list; in the region of five times as many awards as teachers. There are usually three times as many businessmen and women as policemen, and charity workers are frequently excluded, whereas arms traders are included.

The reasoning for this is not known because it takes place behind closed doors. The blanket last-minute bestowing of honours upon the entire English rugby team, however merited, fails to justify recognition of those who, for example, are engaged in reparation work in war-torn Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

To a cynic, this year's honours list arises from inexplicable decisions based on popularism, spin and political contributions. Far from being a cause of celebration, readers of the honours list are frequently left confused.

Ultimately, the honours system does not reflect the society that we have become. We all know of everyday people who have lived their lives for the benefit of others, who are never publicly recognised. This is my fundamental objection to the honours system, that the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process is based on old-fashioned snobbery and hierarchy. The acceptance of an honour incorporates an adherence to those values which play no part in the Britain of the 21st century.

If someone merits a peerage, then elevate them to a revised second chamber but they don't need to have lord, lady or any other manner of quaint title attached to their name.

As a Quaker, it may be that I have a traditional prejudice against the use of titles. The Quaker injunction "let your words be few" means that, with a duty of plainness and simplicity, Quakers have an aversion to incorporating secular language. Worldly language is limited in an effort to reduce the possibility of corruption.

Another Quaker injunction, that of "letting your life speak" is at the heart of my objection to the honours system, namely that, for better or worse, it is what we do in our daily lives that matters and it is that which demonstrates our faith and conscience, irrespective of what we are called or what is on our letter heading.

The discussion concerning the New Year's honours is indicative of the knife edge upon which the House of Windsor and the establishment now sits. Our traditional values are being questioned as we enter the early stages of a new millennium. People wonder why those who receive huge payments for the contribution they make to showbusiness and sport are further acknowledged by the bestowing of a title.

Unless there is some reform to the honours system, or outright abolition, it will be subjected to ridicule and those who truly deserve some recognition will feel that their award is increasingly meaningless.

There are those that uphold the honours system as they do the royal family, in the belief that there is something old fashioned and traditional which we should preserve, regardless of how illogical the system. Some also state that, unlike those who are in the everyday public eye, the honours list provides an opportunity for others to be recognised for their contribution to the community.

But let us be clear that the honours list and the curtain of secrecy that surrounds it is absurd and we should not be hesitant over its revision. If we accept patronage and the honours list, it may be full of those who deserve to be included but alas, it includes those who are recipients for some inexplicable reasoning. Without change, the journey to ridicule seems to be close at hand.