The Government’s victory over the Corporation of Hamilton at the Privy Council re-established the principle that Parliament is supreme in Bermuda’s democratic system.

That was perhaps always going to be the case in the corporation’s attempt to preserve its own system of electoral responsibility, despite its vigorous and innovative defence of its rights.

But it is important to note that none of the courts ruled on whether it was a good or bad decision that the Government desires to abolish the system of elected representatives — with all of the accountability that comes with that — and replace it with a group of appointees to oversee the City.

While the Government is now in a position to force through the legislation it passed in the House of Assembly in 2019 — before it was rejected in the Senate — this is an opportunity, having established its rights, to question whether its plan was the right one in the first place.

While there will be arguments about whether the corporation’s electoral system is perfect or needs further refinement, the fundamental question of whether an elected body provides better governance than one appointed from on high is a debate that is still worth having.

On its face, anyone who values democracy and believes that the closer elected representatives are to their constituents, the better it is for the institution, must lean towards an elected council for both Hamilton and St George.

It is not irrelevant that the voters in Hamilton are also the taxpayers in the City. No taxation without representation is as relevant here as it was to the American revolutionaries in 1776.

There are no better judges of the performance of leaders than those who elect them and who have the ability to remove them at the ballot box if they fall short. That knowledge helps the elected representatives themselves to act in their constituents’ best interests.

The alternative — an appointed panel effectively chosen by the Government — is accountable only to those who appointed them. The natural instinct would be to act according to the whims and demands of the Government, not the people who live, work and pay taxes in Hamilton.

That is autocracy, not democracy.

It could be argued that the elected members of the Government are then accountable to the voters, but this would be done now at one remove. Voters would not necessarily look to the elected MPs as being responsible for the actions of the appointed members of the Corporation of Hamilton. Instead its management — or mismanagement — would be just one element in many that voters are considering when they cast their votes in a General Election.

Bermuda should be looking to encourage more democracy, not to reduce what the island has already.

The only genuine argument against the corporations — and this is separate from the question of how councillors are selected — is that Bermuda is too small to have three different governments operating within its shores. With only 65,000 people, Bermuda could be run more efficiently with one government, the argument goes, eliminating duplication and waste to have services such as garbage collection, roadworks and sewage management run centrally.

But this argument fails with regard to Hamilton because it can be argued just as cogently that the corporation provides these services more efficiently than the central government does, and is also able to meet the needs of the City better than the Government could — case in point, daily garbage collection.

It is less easy to make the argument for St George because the Olde Towne struggles with a smaller tax base, meaning it cannot function without a subsidy. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ask if the central government could provide the same services better. The suspicion here is that the answer is no.

Zane DeSilva, the minister who has responsibility for municipalities, appeared to leave the door open to tempering the proposed changes in his comments after the Privy Council judgment was released, saying the Government would “engage constructively” with the corporations, honouring “their legacy while strengthening governance and service delivery in a manner that is modern, transparent and equitable”.

While those words, and the ones that followed, could be read in many different ways, it is to be hoped that Mr DeSilva, who is a practical man, will not try to find a solution — eliminating democracy — to a problem that does not exist.

It is worth remembering that the last time a Progressive Labour Party government tried to reform the corporations — by removing the business vote — it resulted in a Hamilton council that became a byword for incompetence and mismanagement, culminating in the disastrous Par-la-Ville hotel deal.

But in moving to eliminate elections, the Government in 2019 drew exactly the wrong lesson when it seems obvious that the combined business and residential vote has created a system of governance that works.

Both corporations have worked hard over the past two decades to increase transparency and to be advocates for the growth and success of their municipal areas. Hamilton mayor Charles Gosling rightly said the corporation has served the community with “accountability, transparency and fiscal prudence”.

The question now is whether an appointed quango could do the same. The record suggests otherwise. The members would be accountable to a government minister, not the residents and businesses of Hamilton who pay the taxes.

The corporation is highly transparent at present, much more so than the many government quangos run at great expense to all taxpayers.

And Hamilton does have a record of fiscal prudence, excepting the hotel fiasco, which cannot be laid at the feet of the present administration.