Rachel Maguire
Conflicting opinions have arisen after it was announced that former Primer Minister Tony Blair has been made a Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter in the Queen’s 2022 New Year Honours list. A petition asking for it to be revoked has been signed by over a million people. The reasons are understandable, but also complex and multi-layered.
The Tradition Of The British Honours System
The British Honours system was first introduced by the Normans. Becoming a Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter is the highest honour that can be awarded. It is done so purely at the discretion of the sovereign, which means that Sir Tony Blair’s knighthood was decided by the Queen alone.
It has been a tradition for former Prime Ministers to be awarded this honour following the cessation of their time in office. Previous awardees include Dame Margaret Thatcher, Sir James Callaghan and, most recently in 2005, Sir John Major.
Actions And Responsibility
So, given the tradition of knighting previous Prime Ministers, why has there been a protest against Tony Blair?
To understand this we must firstly look at the Iraq War, which began in 2003, and the subsequent investigation reports which came after. At the time, Blair cited reports of the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which belonged to Saddam Hussain as his reasoning for why military action was necessary in Iraq
However, since the publication of the Chilcot Report in 2016 (an investigation of the British government’s actions leading up to, and during, the Iraq War), it has emerged that the existence of WMD in Iraq and the threat these might pose to the UK was “based on flawed intelligence. It was not challenged, and it should have been.”
“There are countless heartbreaking accounts from family members in the UK about those who lost their loved ones in the war.”
This effectively poured gasoline on an already less than favourable public perception of Sir Tony Blair and New Labour. A perception based on the fact that the former Prime Minister was very firmly in the pocket of President George W. Bush, the catastrophic effects 2008 financial crisis and the damning rhetoric from the Conservative Party which followed.
Many have spoken up about how Blair’s decision to go to war with Iraq had negatively impacted their lives. There are countless heartbreaking accounts from family members in the UK about those who lost their loved ones in the war.
In Iraq, civilian deaths were, at one point, reported to be up to 3,500 per month. The country continues to experience a huge humanitarian crisis. Millions of individuals remain displaced and are still living without access to basic needs like food, water and shelter.
In a wider sense, the ongoing situation in Afghanistan can also be attributed to the 2003 Iraq war, as the 20+ year occupancy was also part of the US and UK’s rhetoric of the ‘axis of evil.’
It is clear that the actions taken by Sir Tony Blair had terrible far-reaching effects both at the time, as well as almost 20 years later. With the announcement of Sir Tony Blair receiving the highest honour that can be bestowed from the Queen, it can be taken that the Iraq War, and its consequences, do not matter anymore. This is extremely hurtful and offensive to those who have suffered as a result.
However, Sir Blair’s time in office did include some successes. These include bringing in the national minimum wage, setting up Sure Start centres for families, improving gay rights, wide public investment and his efforts over the Northern Ireland peace process.
These are proud achievements, and should rightly be celebrated. They were responsible for lifting millions of children and pensioners out of poverty and succeeded in reducing homelessness at the time.
But should the achievements of a government be pinned on one person? The processes and policies which helped so many climb out of poverty in the 1990s and 2000s were made possible by many other members of the cabinet, civil servants and ministers. Is it fair for all the glory of those wins to fall on the shoulders of the one in charge?
Deeper Problems In The British Honours System
These questions can be linked to the long-standing debate regarding the inherent problems found within the British Honours system. For some, the Honours system is seen as a link to the nation’s past; an established heritage which we should be proud of. For others, the British Honours system is simply an inherited relic, which should bear no place in contemporary Britain. Much like the British Empire.
“Is just doing your job, and who you are related to, really the most appropriate way to determine if an individual should be rewarded with the highest honour available?”
It can also be said that the Honours system serves as yet another representation of the class system in Britain. Particularly as there is usually an assumption that a Prime Minister will be awarded an honour at the end of their time in Downing Street, along with members of the Royal Family, ostensibly included purely for their relation to the Queen.
Let us not forget: Prince Andrew still holds the honour of being a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
Drawing The Line
Is just doing your job, and who you are related to, really the most appropriate way to determine if an individual should be rewarded with the highest honour available?
With regards to rewarding a former Prime Minister with the honour, one could argue that they do the hardest job in the country. Therefore, it is appropriate for this honour to be given in recognition of this.
There are some caveats to this argument though. Millions of people in this country have to face hard and stressful jobs. One clear example is the many doctors, nurses and health care workers who have toiled so hard throughout the course of the pandemic. All they got in recognition of their hard work was the, frankly insulting, public applause, which happened once a week in the first UK lockdown.
Also, we could ask ourselves this: is it even appropriate to continue to use hierarchical archaisms as ‘Lord’, ‘Lady’ and ‘Sir’? For example, the United States has its own Honours system, but without the titles.
Another glaringly obvious problem with the Most Noble Order of the Garter is the almost complete and utter lack of diversity in relation to the awardees so far. Of the current 20 members, there are only four white women and one woman of colour. The only person of colour, in fact, that has ever been included in the Most Noble Order of the Garter, is Baroness Valerie Amos. This simply is not good enough.
Final Reflections On The British Honours System
Without diminishing the huge amounts of pain and sorrow of those affected by the Iraq War, perhaps the debate and public outcry should shift from revoking Sir Tony Blair’s title to a fairer and more inclusive method of who gets honoured, and why.
We should rather be calling for a shake-up of the system. A system that has more diverse representation, and one that awards by the virtue of action, not merely as a result of an old job or a familial connection.
The honour of becoming a Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter in particular needs scrutinising. With only 24 places available, it really should be a representation of those who have gone above and beyond in extraordinary ways to serve their communities and their country – something which Prince Andrew certainly does not deserve and, it seems, that Sir Tony did not fully achieve in his time at Number 10.
Image courtesy of Ricardo Cruz on Unsplash. No changes were made to this image. The image license can be found here.
Rachel Maguire
Rachel is a Communications Consultant based in London. She holds degree in Community Development & Public Policy and a degree in Youth Work. She is passionate about changing the narrative of development work and political participation and is on the Executive Committee of Fabian Women's Network.