I heard someone on the radio the other day describing the honours system as egalitarian, because it honoured the achievements of ordinary people. I wondered if he had ever bothered to look at the New Year's honours list. If he had, he could not possibly ever had entertained that illusion. It does not take a genius to work out the precise meaning of all those knighthoods and peerages awarded , to use the correct euphemism, "for services" to a political party. No, these gongs are not given for going out canvassing in the rain (I have done that, and if peerages were awarded for this essential activity, the House of Lords would look completely different). The recipients of these titles have received recognition for their services to democratic life for one reason only: they have given significant, often very significant, amounts of money to a political party. They have done this with the specific expectation that they will be awarded an honour. The introduction of life peerages in 1958 only served to increase the incentives for political patronage.
It should not be controversial to describe this practice correctly. It is corruption, it is absolutely indefensible, and it is a disgusting stain on our political life. The outrage is deepened by the fact that those awarded peerages have become legislators with no apparent qualification other than being very rich and having a propensity to bribe a political party. (This is not a party political point: although people with deep pockets have an understandable tendency to support the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, of which I have been a loyal but often despairing member for many years, is not free from guilt in this regard). The practice of awarding titles to superannuated politicians and to senior civil servants, while not so morally depraved, is questionable. Unlike many others, I do not decry the invaluable work which public servants perform. This country, particularly during this extended Brexit/coronavirus emergency, depends on the civil service. The vast majority of politicians are very diligent and conscientious. However, titles should be awarded only for outstanding achievement. (I leave the criteria for determining 'outstanding achievement' to wiser heads than mine). I do not dispute that many recipients of knighthoods and peerages, with accomplishments in arts, sciences etc, but my argument is that the corruption devalues the honours system as a whole.
The honours system is also permeated by class privilege. The OBE, MBE and CBE are, generally speaking, awarded to one class of person ; knighthoods and peerages to another class. The criteria of merit and distinction in awarding someone an OBE rather than a knighthood are not always clear. The celebration of British imperialism by the honours system is not something which the British state accidentally forgot to reform after decolonisation. It is a deliberate act of refusing to face up to Britain's past and present by escaping into an imagined fantasy world. Given this context of fevered imaginings, it is easy to understand how the seductive fiction of 'Global Britain' has deranged the minds of so many ostensibly rational people who staff our elites.
I would propose the abolition of the existing honours system, with its replacement by one class of honour, the Citizens' Merit Award (CMA). Those who have already been awarded honours under the old, discredited system would be permitted to keep theirs. The criteria for the award would specifically exclude donations to a political party as a qualification for the award. The categories for those who would be given the award would be specified (arts, sciences, medicine, technology, voluntary service, military service, sport etc).
There are those who would throw up their hands at the destruction of this 'tradition.' Traditions are only worth keeping if they aren't rotten to the core, and this one is. Over the past hundred years, there have been protests over abuses of the honours system, most notably by David Lloyd George, and by the farce of Harold Wilson's resignation honours list. Such criticisms miss the point: the honours system is, in its very essence, only secondarily a recognition of personal worth and achievement. It is primarily a register of the extent to which wealth and status can buy influence and recognition.