Sir, following the whirlwind of excitement brought about by the Olympics, the recurrent proposal for implementing an honour system in our nation has re-emerged (Letters, August 26th). One noteworthy achievement of our nation over the past century has been the deliberate evasion of creating such a system, a move I staunchly support. The issue is two-fold, involving the recipients and the “givers”, that is, the ruling government. When considering successful Olympians, haven’t they received enough accolades? Should individuals be rewarded for their personal milestones? Should participants who proved their mettle to participate in the Olympic Games receive minimal recognition? To broaden the scope, it’s simpler to propose who should be excluded from these “honours”. Any current or past politician for their so-called contributions to the state or any serving or retired civil or public servant for their association with their service, as they’ve received enough benefit during their service and upon retiring. This group includes teachers, patrol officers, doctors, nurses, and the like. A separate system exists for the Defence Forces. The academic realm can boast of the Royal Irish Academy membership or honorary degrees from universities for meritorious individuals at local, national, and international levels. Artists have Aosdána. The sphere of business and philanthropy is trickier as those who recall the time of Ansbacher and related scandals, when an honours system was previously suggested for the elite, do not want a rerun of that narrow miss. Universities typically handle this part.
Establishing an autonomous body under the government’s banner is presented as a complex and costly endeavour in this context. Creating such a system necessitates independence from the government for it to maintain any semblance of credibility, which would require the creation of an autonomous secretariat, directed by an individual flanked by a growing number of subordinates. The existence of such an organisation, inherently, would focus on its own self-sustenance before anything else. Furthermore, a monitoring body or a regulator would be needed, necessitating its own administration. A confidential screening process for candidates would be obligatory to mitigate any potential embarrassments. Such clandestine operations would inevitably consume more resources and extend the breadth of the “security state.” A confined structure for nominating candidates would have to be put in place. Proposed ideas such as a citizens’ assembly to review an honours system are merely ploys for politicians unwilling to conduct public debates in the venue they are compensated for to attend and contribute to. In simpler terms, if something isn’t broken, there’s no need to fix it.
The author also notes his view on the discourse about freedom of speech, its significance and how its defence shouldn’t be left to high-profile figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. Also mentioned is a reference to living with cancer, being comfortable with death, and the impactful shows to watch this week.
Kind Regards,
Robert Towers,
Monkstown,
Co Dublin.