I have discovered that I am not alone in my perception of the state of partisan politics in Bermuda. Although I have been aligned with more than one political party during my lifetime, I have always been an uneasy participant. I believe in the concept of teamwork. I am a firm believer in exchange of ideas and dialogue and I also believe that there is strength in unity. True democracy embraces these tenets but I am far from being convinced that the Westminster style of politics that we practice in Bermuda is true democracy at work. Let me elaborate.

During the time leading up to elections, candidates spend much time canvassing voters. Solemn promises are made to potential supporters that their views would be heard and that, as much as possible, the will of the people would be done. The reality is that once elections have taken place and Members of the House are elected, they become tools of the political party system. They are expected to support the views of their constituents; but only if those views are in harmony with the adopted positions of the political party of which they are a part.

The Westminster style political system has mechanisms in place to coerce unwilling Members of Parliament into casting their votes for the party's official position on bills brought into the House. One of the responsibilities of the “party whip” is to make sure, as much as possible, that members vote as expected. Non-compliance could mean discipline for errant Members and that discipline could be as extreme as banishment from the party, irrespective of the opinion or the feelings of the constituents who supported the party by electing those Members. In my way of thinking, this is a form of slavery - political slavery.

It is not uncommon for Members of the House to express grave reservations and even speak against their party's position on an issue and then vote with the party. On some occasions, if the views of dissenting Members are strong enough, they will abstain or absent themselves from the House for the vote. If Members dare to vote against their party, they must be prepared to accept the consequences.

In short, party politics, Westminster style, is self-serving and it is divisive. In Bermuda, where there is a relatively small parliament, the reality is this: The control of the country rests in the hands of the Premier and the Cabinet.

In addition, the system is designed in such a way that good brains may be discarded and lesser brains embraced. The Premier only appoints Members of Parliament and Senators to the Cabinet that are members of his/her political party. In some cases, perceived loyalty to the Premier and the hierarchy seem to be requisites.

In a newspaper interview with the Bermuda Sun published in the March 7, 2003 edition, well known Bermudian and former parliamentarian Julian Hall is reported to have expressed his reservations about and his dislike for the political system in Bermuda. He is quoted as saying: “It is so important that the best, the brightest and the most sincere from all places within the political spectrum be encouraged to present what they have to offer.”

He is also purported to have voiced his opinion that the present political system is demolishing the possibilities of these people and in his words, “it is alienating so many people who have so much to offer but who simply cannot participate in what amounts to a vacuous (inane) unseemly catfight”.

The views expressed by Mr. Hall are certainly in line with my thinking. I sincerely believe that a growing number of Bermudians have already reached that same conclusion or are in the process of doing so. Research, readily available though the internet, shows that there are many politicians and others who have written articles or position papers questioning the relativity of the Westminster political model for the countries and/or regions in which they live. Of particular intrest to me were some of the statements made at the Conference of Constitutional Reform hosted by the Organisation of American States (OAS). This conference took place in Barbados in January 2002.

Cesar Gaviria, a former President of Columbia and now Secretary General of the OAS, gave the opening statement at the Conference, during which he alluded to political reform. In obvious reference to the Caribbean region he declared: “Three decades since the first countries gained independence, there is a strong sense throughout the region that democracy needs to be revitalised.

At the heart of the constitutional reform issue is the Westminister System itself. Many in the region questioned whether the Westminister model inherited from Great Britain guarantees good governance.”

Mr. Gaviria went on to state: “And in the Caribbean, the winner-take-all system, especially in smaller states, can create imbalances, and some close observers of politics in this region are concerned that power is too concentrated in the executive. A number of leaders and academics have advocated moderate reform, while others have proposed more radical changes.”

Speaking at the same conference was Diana Mahabir-Wyatt, a former Independent Senator of ten years in Trinidad & Tobago. She said, “While I appreciate the stability the system has given us in the past, I do not think the Westminister system, even in the many variants in which it appears in the Caribbean, is still appropriate for small Caribbean states at this juncture in history, for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious is size.

Our countries are too small to provide large enough parliaments to make the system work.” Her concern and passion for change became clear when she went on to say: “What we end up with under the present system is an inefficient parliament, simply because by and large, whatever one party proposes, the other party opposes. If the proposer is the majority party, the measure goes through. If it is not, it doesn't. The major motivating factor is not what is in the best interest of the country, but what is in the party interest. We have an elected dictatorship.”

In talking to members of both the PLP and the UBP, including parliamentarians, I have been encouraged by acknowledgements of the inefficiency of our present political system and agreement that there should be some changes. However, I firmly believe that the word “changes” will soon be replaced by the word “reform”.

Although some of the following suggestions for a reformed Bermudian Political system may have never been verbally expressed, documented or published by anyone else, I am not foolish enough to believe that the ideas are all my original thoughts.

VOTING IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

The party whip system should be abandoned, i.e. Parliamentarians should be allowed the freedom to vote on all issues according their conscience and according to their constituents' desires. The benefits would be that (a) Members of parliament will not be able to hide behind their party's banner and (b) voters can judge candidates seeking re-election by their actions and their personal voting records.

THE CABINET

Appointments should continue to be made by the Premier but not from elected or appointed Members of Parliament. Cabinet Ministers should be chosen from members of the community who have a high degree of expertise in the particular area in which they are being considered to serve.

The benefits would be that (a) Ministers would not have to depend very heavily on the civil service for technical expertise, as is the fact in many cases under the present system; (b) appointed Ministers' personal knowledge and experience would make them more effective and efficient;

(c) No longer will Ministers have to try to strike a balance between their Ministries' needs and their responsibilities to their constituents and (d) as Ministers would not be elected Members of Parliament, there should be no temptation to balance ministerial and cabinet decisions between what is right and best for country and thoughts of future re-election.

THE SENATE

Senators should be elected during the general election. The benefits (a) there should be one Senator for each parish, thereby reducing the numbers from eleven to nine.

(b) With the recent constitutional changes that allow constituencies to ignore parish boundaries, this proposed change would ensure that residents in each parish would have an elected representative who can speak for their particular concerns in parliament.

GENERAL ELECTIONS

There should be changes to remove the uncertainty of general election polling dates. Elections should be held every four years on a fixed day, week, and month. The benefits would be that (a) sitting parliamentarians who plan to seek re-election and all other candidates will be able to plan their business and personal lives; (b) official and party election workers will be able to plan their business and personal lives;

(c) voters will be able to plan their business and personal lives; (d) the government of the day will have to live or die by its record rather than calling an election based on public opinion or the perceived disorganisation of the opposition parties or individuals; (e) the cost of elections could be reduced as the work of the Parliamentary Registrar's office can be better balanced and timed.

PARISH COUNCILS

Appointed parish councils should be replaced by elected councils. Unfortunately, appointed boards and committees often have members who have no real interest in or knowledge of the work of the board of the committee to which they are appointed.

The benefits would be (a) elected council persons are more likely to have a genuine interest in the concerns of the parish; (b) the make-up of each council would probably be representative of the various communities within the parish; (c) the councils should be perceived as legitimate advisors to and lobbyists of Members of Parliament with respect to parish matters.

The time has come for us to make a collective decision to move from “Quo Fata Ferunt” to taking control of our own destiny. The move to single seat constituencies with each vote having approximately the same value is a great start. For many of us, it is a dream come true that we thought might not become reality in our lifetime.

The challenge for our present leaders is to continue to process in the development of true democracy. I have concluded that there is no one size fits all political system. My view is that the various dynamics that make up Bermuda demand that we work together to design a system that will meet our needs. It must be a Bermudian thing! We must appoint a team of Bermudians whose common passion and goal is to design a political system that will be as inclusive and as fair and as democratic as possible. This must be done to ensure that the political needs and desires of this generation of Bermudians and of generations to come are well met.

Finally, to coin a phrase, “Parties don't make people; people make parties”. No matter what new political system on which there is agreement and implementation; no matter what platforms or programmes political parties may contrive, they are only relevant when men and women of integrity are in positions of power to take the appropriate actions.