Friday's announcement that the Foreign Secretary has recommended to the Privy Council that the Boundaries Commission report be adopted means that, barring a legal challenge, the next General Election will be fought under the new system of 36 single seat constituencies.

It also means that there is little likelihood of a Constitutional Conference or a Referendum on the changes.

That is a shame because it reduces the possibility of further public participation in the debate and also removes the opportunity to decide once and for all on how the Constitution itself should be changed in the future.

In effect, a precedent has been set whereby changes to the Constitution can be made by a simple majority in the House of Assembly.

That is not to say that the changes to the electoral system are bad or wrong. The high level of public debate and criticism of the changes ensured that Bermuda voters would be represented by 36 members rather than a much lower number and it has also righted the wrongs that existed under the old system of parish-based, dual seat constituencies.

But the bigger issue is the means by which the Constitution can be changed.

The great debate over constitutional change, the initial reluctance of both the Bermuda and the British governments to engage the wider community in the debate until they were forced to and the precedent that has now been set all emphasise why a proper, formal mechanism for change is needed.

To be sure, any change to the document is ultimately up to the British Government.

But that does not mean that Bermudians cannot give the United Kingdom guidance on what they want, either by requiring more than a simple majority of the House to vote in favour of change and/or via a referendum.

Certainly these steps are laborious and time-consuming. But any changes to the constitution should require great thought and care, regardless of which party is in power.

In recent days, the community has heard one Cabinet Minister state that the Auditor General, whose position is guaranteed under the Constitution, and who reports directly to the Governor, should have a limited tenure.

Regardless of the merits of the argument, this is the kind of change that should only be taken after very careful consideration. Under the precedent set for the equally momentous election changes now set to be approved by the Privy Council, this change could be made by a simple majority of the House.

Now politicians can at best tinker at will with the Constitution and at worst they can strip long guaranteed rights from the public, simply because, as in the Auditor's report on Berkeley, because they do not like what they see. That's no way to run a country that should be finding ways to expand democracy and participation rather than limiting it to a Cabinet Minister's whim.