National Liberal Party, its leader Mr. Gilbert Darrell said yesterday.

The party, which formed in 1985 when the Progressive Labour Party expelled six of its members, is hanging by a thread in the House of Assembly with its one elected MP, Mr. Darrell.

"This is an important next vote,'' he said yesterday. "If we don't get more than the one seat we have, then it's liable to be the death knell for the NLP.

"We recognise that very strongly, but we're still very optimistic that there will be some improvement.'' In an interview with The Royal Gazette -- the third in a series with the Island's three political party leaders -- Mr. Darrell said his party stood for open government, a stronger Parliamentary democracy, electoral redistribution and freedom from the historic affiliations of the United Bermuda Party and the Progressive Labour Party.

Mr. Darrell also indicated that his 1985 expulsion from the PLP still fuelled a big part of his political commitment.

He castigated his former party as undemocratic, uni-racial and without a real will to form the government.

"I don't think the PLP has anything to be proud of because if they want to start comparing notes they've never been able to go over the top,'' he said.

"It's important to them simply to win another seat, not government. And in any Westminster-style country, a leader who had lost so many elections, would be dumped.'' Mr. Darrell was equally critical of the UBP, particularly in its drift toward what he called "executive government''.

"The UBP has taken to rule by executive order,'' he said. "They're not really prepared to put things on the floor of the House or allow things to be put on the floor of the House. It's unprecedented.'' Q: What does the NLP have to do to win more seats? A: First of all, we have to get more of us who are running onto the doorsteps of the people. I've always felt that calling on your constituents was rewarding. But now with our new people, they've definitely got to get out. And our new candidates have got to be good, acceptable people. We're getting them, but I don't want to say who they are. We'll make an announcement at the right time.

Q: What does the NLP offer the people of Bermuda? A: First of all the NLP is a party that has not been influenced by factors as have the two other parties. The UBP has been influenced by Front Street. When you get the two banks supporting one political party that's got to have an effect.

Second, the PLP when it formed was basically a black party. There was one or two white people just to look at ... The PLP remain on a black scenario.

That's as true today as it was in the past ... We don't have a label, we're mixed, well mixed. We are truly the only party without a label that puts us into one camp or the other.

Q: You've been clear on what the NLP is not. Can you tell us what the NLP stands for? A: It's a party that is gaining strength for open government. We want a freedom of information act. That's lacking in Bermuda. Our efforts to get information with specific requests from Ministers have gone unanswered.

It involves information on immigration, Government revenues and education -- information should be readily available. We need some sort of legislation that pushes people to give information.

We understand about restrictions on certain information. But for ordinary things like I've mentioned we just don't get it. We want open government.

Q. The other two parties love to undercut you politically. Do you think they encroach on the NLP philosophy? A: No, because they don't stand for what we stand for. I don't think the PLP is really for open government. The PLP sees some advantage in the way the UBP Government conducts itself. And it's my opinion the PLP will do the same thing.

Many decisions are now taken at the executive level. I accused (Works Minister) Dr. Terceira of doing this on the recycling and appointing a contractor to pick up outside of Government.

This is privatising garbage collection. That's a philosophy. It's an outlook.

A lot of people in this country have been trying to do it for years. But rather than come to the House for open discussion they go behind the scenes to get a private firm to do it.

Q: Are the reasons for your split with the PLP still valid today? A: We didn't split from the party. I want to make it absolutely clear that we were expelled. I challenge anybody to get a decent reasonable response from the PLP on why. Now some of them, they can possibly say this person did this and that person did that, but the whole concept of the expulsion was contrary to what they espouse: freedom to speak, freedom to disagree.

Q: You have repeatedly argued that the Government doesn't use Parliament as effectively as it should. What do you see as the shortcomings in the current situation and how would you strengthen the operations of Parliament? A: All we have to do is look at the other Parliamentary democracies and how much they use their MPs. Most of the issues that now come before the House are already cleared by the UBP caucus. But there are many issues, not necessarily political, that affect the whole country. And those issues should be put before committees made up of members of the House as a whole, not just Government members. That's the one distinction between having the House responsible for some of these things that go on as opposed to Government.

Q: But isn't that a natural product of party politics? A: No. If you go to Great Britain they have 600-plus MPs with 16 standing committees. Even in the US, they have committees that adjudicate on the issues that come up.

In 1963 when I was in the House, committees reported to the House and it decided whether to accept (their work) or not. The present Education Act was done by seven or eight people out of both houses. It took us two years. That's the kind of thing I consider to be democratic. Not rule by executive order which is what we're getting to.

Q: Do you think our MPs are underutilised? A: Yes, no two ways about that. Then again, they're not being encouraged.

We're really not performing for the benefit of this country. The parties really aren't up on what democracy really is.

Power is a funny thing. Once you get into power it gives you licence to do almost anything and the distinction is that wise person uses his power judiciously. We're not doing this in Bermuda, particularly when it comes to Parliament.

Q: Do you think there are too many MPs for Bermuda? A: Yes, I think so. I think we can get it down to 30. We need some other constitutional changes in districts. Right now, there are some serious discrepancies. For example, in Hamilton East, I've got 1,100 to 1,200 votes, whereas in Warwick you've got over 2,000.

We've done some exercises on redistribution for equal seat constituencies and it can be done. Even using the 40 members, you'd end up with one in St.

George's, about 11 in Smith's, one in Hamilton. Then Warwick and Pembroke would get more than eight.

When the UBP set themselves up, they saw certain advantages, and that's what happened. The majority in Paget East and West are white. Now their numbers can elect the same numbers as Pembroke does even though Pembroke has three or four times as many people.

It is not truly a democratic situation. Some people will argue that it happens in other countries but every country that calls itself a democracy tries to correct it. And the UBP is not trying to correct it.

Q: Do you think Bermuda suffers from too much politics? A: Too much of the wrong politics. Everybody's always manoeuvring to get a political point across rather than really trying to serve the country. We can't have situations like the one that exists between Mr. Stuart Hayward and Dr. Terceira. It's a real animosity and it's very wrong. We have a lot of that kind of wrong politics.

Now if I come up with something in the House, the chances of getting support from the PLP is nil. That's because of personalities and it's wrong politics.

I don't think we have the respect or the responsibility for governing as we should. Animosity doesn't do any good.

You know, there are members of the PLP who don't speak to me. Believe it or not I know people in the PLP who don't speak to other members of the NLP. It's ridiculous.

Q: The chances of the NLP forming the next government are virtually nil.

So what do you say to people who argue that a vote for the NLP is a wasted vote? A: Well, it's no more wasted than the PLP in the past. In 1968, 1972, you could have said the same thing. But with perseverance, the PLP have improved their chances.

In the United States, as a result of Perot, there are people saying there should be a third party because they've discovered that a lot of people don't like the choice. We've got the same situation here.

Mr. Gilbert Darrell.