What is it about the Progressive Labour Party and publicity?

Plans for constitutional change were announced last year and there were promises that there would be a full public debate on electoral reform.

Nothing much happened until the end of the summer when the Premier, giving every impression of deep reluctance, agreed to attend a number of public forums.

The British Government was brought in as unhappiness about the process grew, and gave assurances that the process would be open and that public input would be welcomed.

The Boundaries Commission was selected and has held a number of public meetings and has now received a large number of public submissions, including those of the Government and Opposition parties.

The Opposition United Bermuda Party, rightly in this newspaper’s view, made its submission public and held a press conference to explain its thinking.

The PLP has decided not to do so — to avoid “a debate before the debate”, according to the PLP’s spokesman, Glenn Blakeney.

In essence, the PLP is saying that the Boundaries Commission should continue to meet in secret to decide on a recommendation for the number of seats. There will then be a debate in the House of Assembly at which the recommendation will be either accepted or rejected. The agreed changes will then be sent to the British Government so that the Constitution can be changed.

Mr. Blakeney also said: “What difference would it be to know now as opposed to during the debate? If now you say a number everybody is going to want an explanation as to why that number and not another number, and you will have a debate before the debate.”

Isn’t that exactly the point?

The public has the right to know what number of seats their representatives think would be suitable for the House of Assembly. The parties involved in the Boundaries Commission should explain why they feel their number is the best possible figure under a single seat constituency system.

To leave it until after the Boundaries Commission has made its recommendation is leaving it too late. The Government has argued it was elected with a mandate to go to single seat constituencies with a reduced House, but left unsaid what that number would be. The people have the right to know what that magical figure is.

The public do not deserve to be treated like children who should accept the decision of their elders.

And this is not just a matter for the general public. It is understood that even the PLP’s own MPs don’t know what the number is. This is not democracy.

The Premier promised a wide debate on this question. That cannot happen if the Premier’s own party refuses to take part. It is a disservice to the people who elected the Government to refuse to give the number and to refuse to explain how the party came up with it.

Where is the transparency? Where is the desire to serve all of the people ... in the sunshine of public scrutiny?”

Those are fine words. But based on Mr. Blakeney’s statements, they are not worth the paper they were written on in the PLP’s 1998 manifesto.