The All Bermuda Congress, which ran an advertisement in this newspaper yesterday on its ten pledges, has provided some radical ideas on how Bermuda should be governed — and how Bermudians should govern themselves. The ABC’s proposals are timely. Bermuda is the home of one of the oldest legislatures in the western hemisphere, and arguably in the world. And although it has only had true universal suffrage since 1968, the Island’s parliamentary system is essentially a carbon copy of the Westminster model, albeit on a smaller scale.

Indeed, in 2003, Bermuda went one step closer to the Westminster system when it moved from the dual seat system that had been in existence since 1963 to single seat constituencies. While no one would disagree that single seat constituencies of roughly equal value was a welcome change, the Island missed the opportunity to consider much more profound and fairer changes which would have corrected some of the flaws inherent in the Westminster system. The major weakness of the system is that it can give a winning party a majority of seats which is far greater than its share of the vote. Alternatively, it can give a party a majority when it has failed to win the nationwide poll, depending on how the votes fall in different constituencies. That is what happened in the US in 2000 when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but won a majority in the Electoral College.

The second problem with the winner takes all system is that it causes undue partisanship and division. Why should a Government compromise or change direction when it has a majority for five years? And why should an Opposition support Government plans when its sole purpose is to unseat that Government? That’s not to say that free and frank debate is wrong or a bad thing: it is essential. But the Westminster system — and this was as true under the United Bermuda Party as it is under the Progressive Labour Party — discourages the adoption of good ideas from the Opposition as much as it encourages the retention of bad ideas from the Government when changing course is seen as weakness.

This is exacerbated by the rules of collective responsibility in the Cabinet, which cause unnecessary secrecy on Cabinet discussions and give the Cabinet control over the Caucus and thus Parliament in small legislatures like Bermuda’s.

It is true that the Westminster system encourages strong government, while proportional representation and coalition government can result in weak and unstable leadership. The ideal is to season the potential for extremism in the Westminster system with the moderation of proportional representation. Now the ABC, through a variety of means, is suggesting that Bermuda look seriously at changing how it elects its governments and how they then govern. Many decisions would be taken by referendum, with a decision on Independence requiring a mandatory referendum, separate from an election. Other issues could be put to a referendum if 20 percent of voters signed a petition.

ABC would also change the election system to a mandatory four-year term with fixed election dates, an elected Senate, direct election of the Premier, and Cabinet representation for parties based on the percentage of the vote they won in a general election. Some of these ideas may be unworkable. It would be hard for a directly elected Premier to work with a Cabinet made up of a majority of another party, although that may be ABC’s point. What ABC does not do is take the next logical step of introducing proportional representation in elections themselves.

On referendums, it is impossible to disagree that a step as momentous as Independence should not be decided by all the people in a single issue vote. But some care needs to be taken about their wider use, which can with the best will in the world, lock governments into prescribed courses of action even when circumstances have changed.

California, through the use of “propositions” has made it impossible for its Governor and legislature to exercise fiscal prudence by preventing tax increases at the same time that it has mandated spending levels on social services. All of these kinds of questions are worthy of honest and forthright debate, and it is inarguable that the current system isn’t working nearly as well as it should or could. So a debate during the upcoming election campaign is welcome and should take place.

Whether it will or not is up in the air, because those who have power are always unwilling to relinquish it. And that, of course, is exactly the problem with the current system.