I'm not going to be the next Chair of Arts Council England. Strictly accurately, what I mean is that I won't be applying for the job that falls vacant when Sir Christopher Frayling, Rector of the Royal College of Art, steps down.

I can think of lots of reasons why I wouldn't - and shouldn't -get the post even if I did apply. But I only started thinking of the possibility of chairing Arts Council England when I received an information pack recently from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport saying it “thought you would like to be considered for this role”.

Let me say that I have nothing against the DCMS, still less against its civil servants. My concerns lie in and over the way the post is defined and particularly over its relationship with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

My difficulties begin with core objectives of ACE. These start with “developing and improving the knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts”. Now this is enshrined in the Royal Charter, so who am I to quibble? But wouldn't it be better if the primary objective was “to create the conditions under which the best artistes and the greatest works of art are realised in the nation as a whole”? All the rest should follow from that overriding objective.

Then ACE is described as the “delivery agent” for the DCMS's strategic objectives of encouraging “more widespread enjoyment of the arts and support talent and excellence”. And my problem? You won't ever get the enjoyment of the arts unless talent is supported and excellence achieved. What comes first should be put first. A small point, you may say, but the order of your priorities is revealing.

I could live with these niggles. What really jarred was No 7 in the list of the chair's responsibilities. I quote it in full: “Ensuring that the Council, in reaching decisions, takes proper account of guidance provided by the Secretary of State or the Department”.

Now, reared as I am in the 50-year-old traditions of the “arms-length principle”, where the Arts Council acts as an independent buffer between government and artistes, in the interest of audiences and the public, the wording brought me up short: “Takes proper account of guidance” provided by ministers and civil servants! What, for a start, is “proper account?” Is a reply to a ministerial proposal that says: “Minister, we have considered your views, we have serious reasons for disagreeing with them and we will not put them into practice” - does this represent “taking proper account?” Can saying “No, minister” represent “taking proper account”? Because unless it is, then the post is merely that - a post office for delivery of the minister's “guidance”.

And that's the other warning-light word: “guidance”. It sounds paternalistic; it sounds superior; it sounds patronising, and its political echoes are enough to make anyone queasy. “Guided democracy” has been the tool of the authoritarian leader for generations past.

Undoubtedly North Korea's “Dear Leader” provides “guidance” to his benighted people. “Guidance” is full of the idea of superior enlightenment that is being passed on to those who are insufficiently aware. Can the chair of ACE decline to accept the minister's guidance? It is a much softer - certainly more evasive - word than “direction”, still less “command”. But isn't it really a weasel way of making it clear that what the minister says goes?

At this point, a personal confession. I am not very good at taking “guidance”. I know this from my time as head of BBC World Service. We - individually and collectively - were scrupulous in taking account of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office view of events and their explanation of government policy. But neither determined the journalistic output and coverage that the World Service provided to listeners. They needed the fullest news, the best information, and not reheated government propaganda. Official “guidance” to the contrary - a rare event - was properly considered and equally properly put in its place. The result was that the World Service was and is the most credible and most influential international broadcaster.

A newly invigorated ACE under its chief executive, Alan Davey, has a great job to do and will do its best to do it successfully. I believe that the wholehearted adoption of the mantra of “supporting excellence in the arts” is both right and potentially transformative. I am also convinced that transformation in the quality of our arts scene needs a more robust insistence on the independence of the funding agency - ie, Arts Council of England.

There are, from what I hear, some big beasts lurking in the arts jungle waiting to be lured out into the public position of chair of ACE. They are more than capable of looking after themselves. I do hope they pay the “proper” attention to the fine print in the DCMS brochure.

And to the DCMS civil servants: “Thank you for thinking of me. It's a great job. But I'll sit this one out.”

John Tusa is chairman of the University of the Arts London and was managing director of the Barbican Centre 1995-2007

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden