17 August, 2014

Dear Sir,

I disagree with parts of the opinion “Constructive Dissent” by Susan Jackson JP. MP on August 13. There is a danger of defending the way things are done, just because they have been done that way for a long time. This approach prevents the investigation of new methods which may be far superior (and less costly) than the status quo. The following comments relate to specific observations in the article. “It (democracy) has at its root the admirable notion that every citizen should have an equal say in the way his country is run. How that works differs from country to country, but most democracies have a two-party system of one type or another.

The two (or more) party system is a form of representative government which means that the electorate effectively delegate their ‘equal say’ to a representative to vote on their behalf. This is not a bad idea, if all electors had a say in all decisions nothing would get done. However, the possibility of referenda which would give electors a say on specific decisions gives the electorate more of a say than they have currently. “If all are supporting the same political view, however that occurs, constructive dissent has been suppressed and the right of many citizens to have their views taken into account has been derailed.”

This comment referred to the concept of National Government in the case of national crisis. First most Bermudians share the same strategic aims for the country, the difference in opinion is how to achieve those aims so the difference in ‘political view’ is a matter of tactics not goals. Second, why not give the electorate more ways to have their views taken into account. This can be compatible with a ‘no party’ system.

“When people say that the party system cannot work in places like Bermuda and other former colonies, they generally mean that the population is not sophisticated enough to effectively manage or work the system. I reject that view, both generally as a statement of the sophistication of the populations of former British colonies in the 21st Century, and specifically, as a statement about the sophistication of the population of Bermuda, which to me is unquestionable”

I totally agree the population is so sophisticated it should be given considerably more say in the decision making process. “But the extraordinary thing is that it works! In the end, governments always seem to muddle through.”

Muddling through is no longer sufficient in the 21st century, unfortunately there are other countries and islands which are our competitors who are doing better than that. Certainly, the shortcomings of the two-party system don’t seem to have driven the world’s major democracies, including the US and Westminster itself, into the arms of a watered-down democratic system. I don’t want to criticise without suggesting an alternative, so here is a summary of an alternative system, which would be less costly and more effective and democratic.

* In summary a hybrid system which delegates decision making to (small number, 11 is sufficient) representatives for most decisions, (the objective being rapid effective decision making, not endless bickering.) but allows all electors to stay involved in the decision process.

* Premier elected by the elected representatives from their own ranks.

* Upper house of ‘wise elders’ (elected by the electorate) who’s role is to keep the representatives true to their oath. “Providing a secure sustainable environment in which Bermudians can thrive, mentally, physically, financially.”

* Representatives have to present an annual plan which has to be approved by more than 50 per cent of the electorate.

* Major decisions (e.g. legalising casinos) go to referenda, the house decides what is a ‘major decision’. With the understanding that voters can demand a referendum

* Voters have the right to demand reviews of decisions and remove representatives if sufficient voters (say 3,000, ten percent of the electorate) demand a review. Effectively the electorate becomes the opposition.

* The whole voting process is dependent on a radical review and improvement in the voting and communication technology we use.

All communications should be available online and in the newspaper. All voting should be online (with suitable security to prevent fraud). Online access in all post offices for voters that are not connected.

MARTIN WILLIAMSON