The BEM had a short-lived history; having started to be awarded during the First World War it stopped being awarded in 1993 when, it was hoped, the MBE would take it's place but it is now thought to few receive an MBE. John Major, the Prime Minister at the time, thought that the distinction between the two honours had become "tenuous".
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not against honours per se. I think it's right that a nation commemorates the achievements of its citizens. I think those who go above and beyond the norm should receive recognition but the BEM? Really?
Why rescuerrect a failed honour and one which, by its very title, many will find offensive?
Do we really need these continual reminders of the past? And what has the British Empire got to do with some Lollipop Lady who did the job for 75 years or someone who devoted themselves to charity work?
What's wrong with having a new honour - let's just call it the "Good Citizen Award"?
This should be applied across the whole honours system - let's come to terms with the fact the British Empire has finished and give honours in the name of the country, not an historical evil, not a transitory monarch but the country.
If politicians want the honour system to mean something, and not merely be seen as a discredited system that's pointless, they must live in the present not the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment