A Progressive Labour Party victory on October 5 would mean the end of "Bermuda as we know it''.

That was the warning Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan delivered this week in an interview with The Royal Gazette .

"Bermuda as we know it would not be the same Bermuda,'' under a PLP Government, Sir John said. "The confidence factor would be gone, and the business would be gone with it.

"So would some of the social gains that we've made, because we wouldn't be able to pay the bills.'' Sir John said his comments were not intended to instil fear, and Bermudians were free to vote as they saw fit. "But be prepared to live with the decision that you make,'' he said.

He called on voters to ask themselves what members of the PLP had run successfully, and consider the challenges the Island faced. Premier since 1982, Sir John also talked about the Base issue, his party's blueprint, and dissatisfaction in society. Q. Sir John, how do you feel about this election campaign? Any surprises? A. The plan has gone according to schedule. We would lay out our strategy, give voters a blueprint, focus on that blueprint in terms of a commitment to ensure Bermuda stays on track. We've made improvements, we've dealt with the vitality of the economy, recognising that the world was changing and Bermuda had to change with it.

The world of insecurities can be overcome if we produce a stable Bermuda.

That's what the blueprint is all about -- to tell people what we are going to do to achieve this. Utilise our international contacts and resources to help to achieve the objective of maintaining and improving on our viable economy, improve education, improve housing, improve health, and provide people with jobs opportunities that are compatible with their training.

When one looks at the country in retrospect, where we were 10 years ago and where we are today, it is a plan that has worked. The blueprint deals with the future -- the things that we are going to do to build on the foundation that has been laid that will allow us to move into the 21st century, retaining the respect of ourselves and also of the world.

We are respected because we have built the world's largest per capita middle class and educated more people per capita than any other country in the world, with the highest standard of living.

Q. After 25 years in power, why is the United Bermuda Party only now producing a "blueprint'' for Bermuda's future? A. If you look at a lot of the things in the blueprint, they are things that we've been already doing.

The Commission on Competitiveness, the Task Force on Employment, the Education Task Force, training and retraining programmes, and a myriad of things mentioned in the blueprint. We have now defined in writing the programmes that we have been working with, and added to them where appropriate. This is an ongoing process to assure the future.

Q. Looking back on your record as Premier, what do you see as your major accomplishment? A. I couldn't pick one thing. My intention was never to focus just on one thing, other than to improve the quality of life of all of our people. We have today a most definite improvement in the quality of life of Bermuda. It's made up of those ingredients that I just mentioned. If you ask me what is my plan to assure that is maintained, we're going to build a fairer, more just, and equitable society, and we're going to remove any obstacles that might impede the full development of the individuals or any new institutions, be they small businesses or institutions designed to service our society. Remove obstacles that are impediments as a result of any preferred treatment.

Q. What about the large number of Bermudians who are disaffected from and distrustful of the political system? A. When you have a small Island like Bermuda, it is densely populated. In order for the Island to work, it must be a regulated society, it must be a policed society, it must be an ordered society. It goes against people's desires to be free, I think, to do what they feel they should be able to do.

The whole Government process interferes with that.

You are bound more often than you'd like to, to cause people to be inconvenienced, offended, or affected in such a way that they question the authority and find a level of dissatisfaction. The alternative would be to do nothing and find ourselves, like many other jurisdictions, with chaos on our hands -- a disorderly society that is in financial and social and legal chaos, which Bermuda is not. The fact that it is not speaks volumes in itself. It works.

The price paid for it working is an inconvenience. There are many, many restrictions. And you can't get away from it, because the Island is so small.

It is easy then to go out to a rally and talk to people about their dissatisfactions. The natural tendency is to blame it on somebody. The only person you can blame it on is the Government. What you don't want the Government to do is to relent on that, because then you have chaos.

Many Governments have relented on it and produced chaos. We'd rather take the consequences of not pleasing everybody all of the time, and have an orderly society that is respected. People can get a good education, wake up in the morning and feel a good sense of security, and have good job prospects.

Q. Do you see such disaffection as natural then, or a social problem to be addressed? A. I see it as a problem. Whenever you get frustration, it brings with it a certain level of stress, a certain level of contempt. With that comes the consequences of a certain level of rebellion, non-compliance and the consequences of non-compliance. But you cannot make politics the objective.

You've got to make the right thing the objective.

You look at Bermuda where it was 10 years ago -- people marching and protesting. Today, there are more people participating in all events that take place. Cup Match used to be basically a black function.

Today, I go out to a lot of functions, and they are mixed in many respects, and have a good proportion of mixing taking place. I see more mixed neighbourhoods than I did 10 years ago.

There's been a growing up in our society. When we talk about removing the last vestiges of discrimination, we've removed the physical barriers, and now will have to remove the intellectual barriers.

Q. What do you see as the implications of a PLP victory on October 5? A. The PLP is a party that is more exclusive. It's not inclusive, as is the United Bermuda Party. They have no track record in running things, as was the case in many Caribbean islands. The Island depends upon a broad spectrum of association both internally and externally. You've got to understand the social culture of the world. That helps to make things happen for you -- which I don't think the PLP quite understands.

I think for Bermuda it would mean the fact that we were reversing a direction that has managed to fare well for us up until now. It hasn't pleased everybody all the time, but we do have a country that is better than any other country that I know of.

I think in reality that Bermuda as we know it would not be the same Bermuda.

The confidence factor would be gone and the business would be gone with it. So would some of the social gains that we've made, because we wouldn't be able to pay the bills. I guess you've seen that happen in other places.

That's not designed to put fear into anybody. That's a reality check. You just have to look and ask yourself: What have they run successfully? I've come out of a business experience. A lot of my colleagues have come out of business and professional experiences and are very successful. We bring those experiences to the agenda.

In the changing world we are in today, the recession and military de-escalation together mean that the pegs have been pulled out from under us.

That means we've got to build a society on a new Bermuda, which calls for a bi-racial approach that not only is articulated philosophically but works in a practical sense.

The PLP has taken a historical union hardline position, and set themselves up against the business community, which provides the creation of jobs. In that clash, we've had to be the mediator between those two groups and to provide a level of fairness in that mediation process.

That mediation process would be lost. It would be the PLP trade unions versus the business community. As much as they say they want to compromise, the day that conflict comes along, the Government would have to make a decision whether it supports the union or whether it supports business. Just the perception that it's doing one or the other will mitigate against their ability to act as arbiter. That would create, I believe, a sense of insecurity in our society. What has been a traditional well-balanced society would be thrown out of line.

I go back, therefore, to say to you that the blueprint that we've laid out and the commitment that we've given to move society ahead in many areas is something that hopefully once again will reduce the stress and the tension that might exist between our people.

The stability of a country is more governed by how its people are best served.

It's not a question of who serves, but who best serves, who best meets the needs of the people of the country as a whole and who will produce a level of fairness and justice.

When you look around the world, even when you've had Governments changing, change doesn't necessarily mean that you get the best alternative change. It sometimes just means that you've done it for the sake of doing it.

Unfortunately, the consequences are worse than if you haven't changed. We're not here to tell the public how to vote. But be prepared to live with the decision that you make. It's democracy that we live in. You have a choice. If your choice is the same Government because the Government itself changes, then you weigh that, as opposed to saying just change for the sake of change. You might find that all you've done is exchange. You've exchanged something with no change whatsoever.

Q. There appear to be many similarities between the UBP and PLP platforms Would you agree? A. A lot of things in the PLP platform are in our platform. They had access to our platform. Other things are things that we've been doing all along. You can't actually create something that's so drastically different. It's not just a question of just having it in your platform. It's how you get it done. You can throw all kinds of things on paper. But how can you raise the money? How can you best manage in an efficient way the implementation. We are more capable in a demonstrated way of doing that. We've got a track record both in our private lives and in our public lives.

Q. How much will it cost to implement what is promised in the blueprint? A. The blueprint contains nothing that we are not committed to and that will not fit into our budgetary process. That is controlled by our policy of keeping a current account surplus, and our borrowings must not exceed 10 percent of our GDP. We have some very clear guidelines and some controls.

We have a blueprint, we also have a capital plan. We have an implementation plan for the blueprint. They come together to produce a sound fiscal policy that helps to run the country, that causes it to be regarded, by international standards, as one of the best performers in the world.

A lot of the blueprint already is in the process of being implemented. The drugs strategy, is an example. The incinerator. Mortgage financing.

Q. At the time of the last election, there was dissension in your caucus. What is the situation now? A. The UBP is different from the PLP. The UBP is a cross-section of our society -- a mosaic of our society. There are professional people, ordinary people, the rich and the poor, some are political and some are not. It really is a true mosaic of Bermuda.

You're bound to get from time to time issues that will cause people to take positions that can be opposed to each other. When those positions break out into public for various reasons, the public perceives us as fighting. We are taking positions on subjects that we as a party feel very strongly about.

We are much more prepared now to dialogue. The party itself has grown up. It recognises that what it does and what it says has an impact on what people feel and how people might perceive us. The party has evolved and it's changed as society has changed.

Q. How is your health? A. I'm very fit. I work out at the gym, I run. I get up mornings at about 5.30 and get a head start. I think it's important that a leader be healthy. A leader needs to be able to be strong, a leader needs to be able to convey a sense of strength and to be a role model for young people, not only intellectually, but physically.

You must look healthy and be healthy. It conveys a very good message to people who meet you overseas.

Q. Many Portuguese people have been angered over the treatment of friends and relatives over the last five years. What assurances can you give to the Portuguese that they will be treated fairly? A. What we're talking about are people who have been here a long time, who do not fall in the category of having been here at a very young age, and if they have been they've had to wait until they were 22 years of age before they could enjoy the benefits of being a Bermudian.

We're lowering the age of majority to 18.

Whatever policies we evolve, we have to look at what are the implications to Bermudians, so as to not in any way denigrate the opportunities Bermudians may have. At the same time we recognise we've got to develop a level of fairness for people who have been on the Island for a number of years.

We have to look at the issue and see how best we can serve the interests of all out of fairness. The issue is not just a Portuguese issue. It is an issue of various nationalities.

If you ask me have we been unfair, we've made every attempt based on the representations that have been made to find solutions and to conciliate the process itself. What they are saying now is we haven't gone far enough in helping them to be full participants in the process. This is not the climate right now. If there is something that is within reason that does not dislocate Bermudians, we can look at it.

SIR JOHN SWAN -- `We are respected because we have built the world's largest per capita middle class.' OCTOBER 1993 ELECTION