Governor Sir John Vereker last night delivered the inaugural lecture to the Foundation for Bermuda Studies at Bermuda College. Here is the text of his speech.

I stand before the board in Government House, which proudly lists the names and dates of my 83 predecessors. It is a humbling experience. Those battalions of 19th and 20th Century Lieutenant-Generals. Legions of Military Crosses and Distinguished Service Orders. All those Captains in the 17th and 18th Centuries. And what of Governor Bennett, who served for a full 12 years between 1701 and 1713, and then came back for more between 1715 and 1722, making an astonishing 19 years in all? Was he, were any of these amazing men ? yes, all men, of course ? ever subject to a moment?s doubt about their role? Did they wake up in the dead of night assailed by uncertainty as to what they were for?

I am no historian ? and this will not be a history lecture ? but I think not. Until rather recently, being a Governor was a straightforward enough job description. It may not have been an easy job, but the role was clear. You governed. The pictures of those gentlemen with the mutton chop whiskers in the rogues gallery on the guest corridor upstairs in Government House say it all: they are replete with Victorian certainty. Laws, religion, values, alliances and the social order were enduring, and an important part of their jobs was to keep it that way. Governor Bennett would not have described himself, in the awful modern jargon, as a change manager.

Press the fast forward button, if you will, to today?s Governors. The clarities and certainties have been washed away, along with the mutton chop whiskers and Military Crosses. Today?s Governor, if he allows himself ? or herself, as I am glad that we can now say in Montserrat ? is the creature of a profound identity crisis. In my waking moments first thing in the morning I am the person I know I have always been, who once was a schoolboy, then a student, a husband, a father, a wage earner.

But in the course of the average day in Bermuda I am a chameleon, whose colours are infinitely variable. I may be acting as a Head of State, when I am receiving foreign visitors, or performing formal functions such as opening Parliament; or a head of Government, when I am dealing with the matters reserved to me under the Constitution; or a Commander in Chief, when I am dealing with the Bermuda Regiment; or a bureaucrat, when I am dealing with the e-mail traffic from Whitehall; or an estate manager, when I am dealing with the running of Government House and its grounds; or a hotelier, when ensuring the comfort of our many guests. And sometimes, just occasionally, filling the interstices between the daytime engagements and the evening functions, I may be a normal human being on the tennis court, on a boat, or having a quiet drink as the sun goes down, casting its golden reflection over the ocean beyond the western end of this wonderful Island.

How did we get from there to here, from the predictable world to the unpredictable, from the rigid to the fluid, from the simple to the complex? From a world in which the Governor wore the same clothes all day to one in which he may change his clothes and persona several times before lunch? It is appropriate that you have asked me to talk about that in this inaugural lecture for the Foundation, because the answer goes to the heart of two key issues for anyone enrolled in Bermuda studies ? the effect of the 1968 Constitution, and the ever-increasing degree of integration of Bermuda into the wider world that has been brought about by the forces of globalisation.

It is perhaps also appropriate for me to be speaking on this subject shortly after the Premier of Bermuda has called for public discussion of the case for Independence. I will be confining my own contribution to that discussion, at the appropriate time, which is not yet, to some factual observations on matters that are the responsibility of the UK, presented in a strictly neutral way. Meanwhile you have usefully given me the opportunity to set out the counter-factual: what you may expect of the role of a Governor in the what-if-not scenario.

The 1968 Constitution

So let me take first the effect of the 1968 Constitution. Every student knows that this document embodies a step change to internal self-governance, with its mimicking of the Westminster democratic system and its careful delineation of the respective powers of the Governor and of the Government. A lecture to the Hamilton Lions Club on November 22, 1995 by my distinguished predecessor but one, Lord Waddington, set that out in layman?s terms in a way that has not been bettered since, and I will not repeat it here.

But all is not what it seems, even when ? perhaps especially when ? it comes to the law. The Constitution defines, for instance, in Section 62 an unqualified role for the Governor in external affairs, defence, the armed forces, internal security and the police. My predecessors have, with good reason, delegated some aspects of these powers to the Government of Bermuda ? who hold the purse strings anyway. So my Constitutional powers may be less than appear on the surface. But they may also be more. On the bookshelf in my office rest the 11 heavy volumes of the laws of Bermuda. Many of these empower the Governor, beyond what is found in the Constitution. And custom and practice play a part. What are we to make of the oath of office required under the Constitution to be taken by all Ministers, with its commitment to give counsel and advice to the Governor in any area of public affairs? Is that the constitutional basis for the Premier?s weekly call at Government House, or is that, as he has been kind enough to imply, merely the inducement of our legendary hospitality and the quality of the Government House tea? The Constitution and the laws are not straightjackets but living documents, whose impact is constantly shifting with interpretation and practice.

Globalisation

That is fortunate, because the second factor, the impact of globalisation, would certainly have imposed unmanageable strains on the constitutional relationship in the absence of willingness on all sides to make it work within the present framework. In an earlier address in this very College last autumn, I set out the ways in which the relationship of all Overseas Territories with the United Kingdom are now inevitably becoming more complex. Constitutions that made good sense when the distinction between internal and external affairs was reasonably clear-cut are arguably less appropriate for a world in which the United Kingdom was reasonably clear-cut and arguably less appropriate for a world in which the United Kingdom carries an array of responsibilities that bear directly on internal affairs. In the 1960s there was rather little discussion of global issues such as terrorism, financial stability, good governance, human rights or the environment ? and rather a lot of discussion about the maintenance of internal security and protection from outside threats. The new issues know no international boundaries, not even those of islands; they occupy an extraordinary amount of the time of the world?s leaders; they form the heart of what is expected of a modern governor; but they find no obvious place in the Constitution. In his 1995 lecture David Waddington observed, ?it is not very comfortable having all the responsibility in international law but not much of the direct power necessary to see that all those obligations are fulfilled?. The very existence of those obligations, and of the other new issues, places a huge premium on the construction of a relationship between the Governor and the Government of the day that is based on sufficient mutual respect to carry their weight.

Recent Evolution

How has all this worked out in practice? It would be wrong to portray the evolution of the role of governors as a logical and linear progression. That would be to over-simplify both the way in which the various forces have emerged and, more important, the way in which individual Governors have responded.

Many of the issues I have described are relatively new phenomena. Concerns about sources of global financial instability date largely from the Asian financial crisis of 1997. The focus on counter-terrorism and terrorist finance is a direct result of the awful events of September 11, 2001. Even widespread public awareness of the fragility of the global ecosystem, which now seems so firmly embedded, is only two decades old, traceable to work in the early 1980s on the ozone layer and the potential for global warming. The forces of globalisation at the end of the 20th Century have accelerated the rate at which Bermuda has become part of the wider world. They will continue to do so.

And Governors have responded in different ways, reflecting their varied backgrounds and perceptions. We have not, in Bermuda, been as homogenous a group since the 1968 Constitution as we were before it. Then, we were almost without exception military. I am the tenth Governor to exercise the powers of the 1968 Constitution and only one of those ten has been military. Perhaps more surprisingly, only four have been diplomats ? the only four in the nearly 400 years of Bermuda?s history as an inhabited island. The experience brought by a Governor who was a Cabinet Minister is very different from that of a Governor who has been Ambassador to Washington, or, perhaps I might say, a specialist in development finance.

New technology has also added its own impetus to the changing role. I am the first Governor to work in front of a screen, the first to carry a cell phone. The appetite for laptops, text messages and blackberries will probably remain a matter of individual taste, but the integration of Government House into modern systems of communication is irreversible. The effects are profound, from the satphone that was for a while Bermuda?s only form of communication with the outside world after Hurricane Fabian, to the secure communications that enabled our Prime Minister to stay in touch while on holiday here during Easter week.

Governors are no longer remote figures, instructed spasmodically by dispatch, and approached only with deference. They can, if they so choose, participate actively in, even drive, decisions being taken in London which affect Bermuda, without leaving the Island. They can engage, as I try to, with issues in the wider world where they are by virtue of skill or experience able to make a contribution. And they can now keep their fingers on the Bermudian pulse from almost anywhere in the world.

So there is scope within limits for Governors to define their role, both in relation to the changing demands of the job, and in relation to what each individual can bring to it. Let me say a word first about the limits, then about the scope, and then about what that might imply for the future.

The Limits

In 1684, following petitions from Bermuda, King Charles I revoked the Bermuda charter and took responsibility for appointing the Governor. Colonel Coney, who had been the last Governor appointed by the Bermuda Company, remained in office in order to grapple with the multiple problems he had inherited from his predecessors. He wrote of them that there had been ?several governors native of the country, whoe for kindreds sake and their owne private interest, permit the inhabitants to doe what thay pleased, providing the sole cause of this confusion and trouble?.

We have come a long way since then, and the near anarchy described by Governor Coney is a useful reminder from our history of one limit: there is more to governing than letting people do as they please.

So imagine a spectrum of possible roles, ranging at one extreme from benevolent inactivity to at the other extreme a frenetic interventionism. The realistic limits of 21st Century gubernatorial behaviour are well within these extremes. The option of viewing four years in Government House as an excuse to drift into a rum-soaked sunset is no longer available, though in truth it probably never was. The 21st Century Governor needs to be prepared to work hard, both in his office and out of it, and to exercise a wide range of skills. And he or she is required to protect certain key values, such as independence of the judiciary, the political impartiality of the public service, integrity in the administration of justice and the standards of governance that are expected in democratic societies. Let there be no doubt that British Ministers expect Governors in all the Overseas Territories to act as guardians of probity and good government within their constitutional powers.

The other outer limit is equally important. The biggest mistake an incoming Governor could make would be to ignore both the Constitution and four decades of successful internal self-government, and to attempt to intervene on, or feel responsible for, every issue. That would not be constitutional; it would not be welcome; it would not be helpful; and it would certainly not be necessary.

The Scope

Within these limits, however, lies a pretty wide range. In external relations, with for instance the United States or the World Trade Organisation, it would be possible to stand aside, or to offer to help. On issues affecting offshore finance, it would be possible to leave the authorities to deal with the acronym soup of international regulatory and investigating bodies, or to attempt quietly to intermediate. Counter-terrorism, human rights, responsible environmental management, could be pursued lackadaisically or diligently. A wise Governor will judge carefully where his value added lies, and will also take careful account of the likely local reaction to judge whether he is pressing too hard against the limit of acceptable intervention.

Let us remember, too, that in buying a Governor you are now usually buying two people for the price of one. The Constitution is properly silent on the role of the first lady, and there are very few references to Governors? wives in the written histories of Bermuda. They do not even appear in my rogues? gallery until 1931. Their role too has seen its own evolution, and the self-effacing flower in the background, four paces behind her husband as detailed in the protocol, is not necessarily the model that 21st Century first ladies will want to adopt. Today?s spouses, of either sex, have often pursued successful careers in their own right, and have much more to contribute than the occasional admiring glance at their partner ? as anyone who heard the present first lady?s speech at the opening of the Anne Frank Exhibition in the Town Hall last week will know.

The breadth of the issues with which Governors now have to deal is extraordinary. In the last two weeks alone I have had to be familiar with the international agreements on satellite orbits, the IMF?s regime for assessing the stability of offshore financial centres, the UK laws on nationality and citizenship, the accepted standards for the regulation of aviation, the security of ships on Bermuda?s shipping register, the UK/US agreement on extradition, and appointments in the judicial system, among many other issues. And, though I assure you I seldom compare myself to a god, I am expected to act like Janus, the guardian of gates and doors, two headed, looking each way across the Atlantic Ocean. With one head I convey here in Bermuda the message of good governance and sound economic management that comes constantly down the line from London. But I invite you to bear in mind that with the other head, less often seen but, I assure you, as often intruding even if not always welcome, I am conveying in London the message of a self-confident territory that does not much need to be told how to run its affairs. In Bermuda, the Governor may see his role as the steady pulse beating at the heart of the Constitution; in London, he is more likely to feel like the grit in the smooth running official machine.

The Future

Under unchanged Constitutional circumstances, I do not believe the limits to the role of the Governor as I have described them will change. There is no intention on the part of the British Government, and no likelihood, that the successful evolution of a largely internally self-governing jurisdiction will be rolled back. It would require an astonishing loss of competence on Bermuda?s part, and an equally astonishing loss of confidence on the UK?s part, for that even to be contemplated.

But nor is there any returning to the days when what happened in Bermuda could have little impact on the outside world. I do not expect, any more than did David Waddington in that same speech, a Bermudian Governor to be appointed in a Bermuda that is not independent. Governor Coney would, I think, concur. Equally, there is no possibility of the Governor?s being reduced to a merely ceremonial substitute for a head of state; that is the role of a Governor-General, not of a Governor, and I do not need to explain to this audience what you need to do to get from here to there.

I offer you, therefore, a what-if-not-independent scenario that you may regard as either enlightened or doomsday, according to taste: an indefinite progression of Governors rather like me. By comparison with some of our predecessors we may be perhaps a little younger, and maybe a little less formal. We may have careers in front of us as well as behind us. But the key point is that responsibilities will continue to be placed upon us by virtue of the UK?s own international relations and obligations, as well as by the Constitution. We will display a marked reluctance to stand idly by if things appear to be going wrong, as from time to time they will even in the best ordered place. But we will be motivated by nothing more complex than a determination to do what is right and best for Bermuda.