Not open and transparent October 19, 2000 Dear Sir, Many readers will know that great philosophers and defenders of liberty have emphasised the desirability of transparency in government. John Stuart Mill asked how, without publicity, citizens could either "check or encourage what they were not permitted to see?'' Woodrow Wilson, later President of the United States, argued passionately that "Government ought to be all outside and no inside'' and "there ought to be no place where anything can be done that everybody does not know about''.

The PLP promised transparency. The new government would "operate in the sunshine of public scrutiny''. But our experience over the last two years has been very different. The Government is not open and transparent with the public. Just ask any taxi driver.

The public is starved of information, with the result that it is not possible for citizens to participate in the proper government of this country as equal, active partners. Any government that was truly committed to democracy would treat the people with more respect than this. "Government by the people'' means "government by all the people, acting together as full and equal partners in a collective enterprise of self-government'' per Professor Gerald Dworkin in "What is Democracy?'' If our Government loved and honoured democracy, it would provide Bermuda's citizens with information and allow informed debate of the arguments `for and against' all important decisions affecting the community. This is especially the case in respect of decisions affecting our Constitution. A more democratic government would have no trouble recognising that open discussion will be better for the health and long-term stability of Bermuda.

It is profoundly worrying to learn that our Government has been speaking secretly for months with the UK Government about constitutional changes which will affect us all. If Monday's reports of Pamela Gordon's meeting with Baroness Scotland are true, then matters are even worse than we could have feared, because it appears the Government has been attempting to mislead the UK Government. Contrary to what Whitehall may have been told, there has been no consultation with the Bermudian public on the proposed constitutional changes. It is false to suggest otherwise. There has been no explanation of the proposed changes in the House of Assembly or the newspapers. How could we even begin to discuss them meaningfully among ourselves, when the Premier's superficial paper does not give us enough information to know how it is intended the proposals will work in practice? The fact is, this Government has done nothing to persuade the community that the proposed changes will improve the quality of democracy for all Bermudians.

A BERMUDIAN MUSHROOM Hamilton Parish Train wreck is coming October 31, 2000 (The following was sent to Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Foreign & Commonwealth Office London and copied to The Royal Gazette .) *** Dear Baroness Scotland, I am writing to you to express my deepest concern about events happening in Bermuda.

The Government of Bermuda, The Progressive Labour Party, wishes to change the Constitution. They wish to do so by railroading the people of Bermuda. I know you are aware of their desire to change the Constitution, but I do not believe you are aware that the people of Bermuda feel this is such a critical issue that the people of Bermuda should be involved in the process by way of a referendum. That is the course of action which a truly democratic country will follow.

If you endorse the actions of the PLP by not interceding on behalf of all the electorate of Bermuda, you are clearly demonstrating that the United Kingdom turns a blind eye to nothing short of dictatorship in one of her colonies.

Where will it stop? A train wreck is coming.

A REGISTERED VOTER IN BERMUDA Smith's Parish Why the rush? October 29, 2000 Dear Sir, Page 46 of the 48-page PLP 1998 Manifesto stated, in part: " A PLP Government will work towards: Establishing single seat electoral constituencies of equal eligible voter populations, thus recognising the fundamental principle of one person, one vote, each vote of equal value.

Reducing the number of seats in the House of Assembly''.

Page 5 of the same Manifesto invited us to "share in the PLP's vision of a New Bermuda...where the Government operates in the sunshine of public scrutiny''.

How many voters in 1998 thought for one moment that the foregoing statements meant that the PLP would attempt to amend the Constitution by stealth? We need more information on the proposed changes, and implications of same, if not by way of a Constitutional Conference then by many public meetings where we can express our views.

Why the rush to change the Constitution as regards the number of seats in the House? The PLP won 26 seats under the terms of the current Constitution how then can it be seem to be unfair to the PLP and its supporters? With such a majority they must surely be secure that they will remain in Government for two terms at the very least? So again I ask -- why the rush? I have been told that whilst the Boundaries Commission consists of two members of the PLP, two members of the UBP and two members appointed by the Governor the report of the Commission will go to the Premier, The Honourable Jennifer Smith, who has the right to amend it as she sees fit before presenting same to the House. I am sure that this must be misinformation but only by way of public meetings can we seek the truth.

SUNSHINE LOVER Pembroke It's a `scary thing' October 30, 2000 Dear Sir, Our House of Assembly can change the constitution so they fully determine the voting districts ("constituency boundaries''). Isn't it a scary thing! I've read the proposed changes myself, as everyone in Bermuda should. I do not wish a rigged election game, and I'm sure you don't wish this either.

To all: Please do not let the Premier determine proposed voting districts! We may like the current Premier and the current House of Assembly, but in the future this change could come back to haunt all of us. Nobody should pressure you to vote for this seemingly obvious trickery. I will not trust those who vote in favour of this currently proposed constitutional amendment. Change it in favour of democracy.

This is section 54 (3) of the Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 - "As soon as may be after the Commission has submitted a report under subsection (1)(b) of this section, the Premier shall lay before the House of Assembly for its approval the draft of an order by the Governor for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report, and that draft may make provision for any matters which appear to the Premier to be incidental to or consequential upon the other provisions of the draft.'' Section 54 (3) should be changed if other changes are made. Without parish boundaries and a set range for the number of voting districts, the Premier can change "constituency boundary'' recommendations in whatever manner the Premier (and their party) pleases. Any party in power can vote these amended "constituency boundary'' recommendations to prolong their power unjustly.

Also, I believe that we will have unnecessary disagreement about whether it was done fairly: 1. We must have a set range for the number of voting districts. (36-44 persons) 2. We must have a set structure to how a voting district can be created. (The United States does.) It would be prudent that we change set procedure before any change is allowed to our Constitution. (Possibly greater than 90 percent agreement in the House of Assembly, or greater than 50 percent of the voting population in a referendum.) This is my observation as a watchful independent in Warwick East.

EDWARD R. DOE Warwick `Disrespectful' October 30, 2000 Dear Sir, In this morning's Gazette , one reads that the British Labour MP whom the PLP brought in to be the guest speaker at their banquet held on Saturday night (October 30), stated that the UBP had been "disrespectful to democracy'' in their boycotting the Throne Speech on the opening of Parliament the day before.

It was most "disrespectful "to the people of Bermuda for the PLP Government to attempt to change the Constitution by placing a Bill for such a fundamental purpose before the House of the last day of sitting before recessing for the summer break. Further, it was contemptuous of the Opposition, who represent 48 percent of the voters, not to have given them due notice of the Bill and its contents. (But presumably their own Back Bench were surprised)! No public discussion of what was being proposed was contemplated. Is this an example of the "new Bermuda's'' democracy? We understand that the main purpose of the proposed change is to (1) reduce the number of seats in the House; (2) permit only one representative for each constituency; and (3) to completely change constituency boundaries, (ignoring Parish boundaries), and to leave such changes to a Boundaries Commission. Such changes would greatly reduce the representation of the voters and greatly enhance the power of the Cabinet: the first step towards the slide to a dictatorship. Is this what Bermudians want? A second Cuba? Of course the average person is not familiar with the Constitution, nor the power such changes would give the Cabinet (then also much reduced in size), so as to give the Premier the ultimate power. They had better think about this, and realise that if such fundamental matters can so easily be changed, other things can also be changed without reference to the people. This is not democracy, no matter how much is proclaimed about "one man one vote of equal value.'' That of course is to elect whom you want, but does not control what he or she can do once elected. Is this really what Bermudians wish? Every one agrees some adjustments are required to reduce the discrepancies in the size of some of the constituencies, but reducing the number of seats is not the best method of doing this. How about doing in Warwick, and wherever there is need for an adjustment, what was done in Pembroke: to divide it into three or even four constituencies? Such increase in the number of MPs would not be more costly than a reduction of seats; than for those who are elected to become full-time members (and they no doubt would so become) with salaries that have not even been imagined.

It is quite unrealistic to believe that the size of each constituency would be alike, we cannot, it seems, even take a census. In all the change it is advocated that Parish boundaries would be disregarded. Leave Parish boundaries alone. They have been constant from the beginning. They are important to us, we all have Parish pride, which is healthy.

Whatever we do, fist we must have a constitutional conference, and if there are to be major changes, this to be followed by a referendum. Over the years we have evolved a great many freedoms, this is no time to throw them away.

This is not for the benefit of just a few, but for everyone in Bermuda.

JOYCE D. HALL Pembroke Brilliant opinion October 28, 2000 Dear Sir, Pornocracy in Bermuda is the title of Tim Hodgson's latest opinion piece in the October 27 issue of The Mid Ocean News. It is a brilliant piece of writing and for anyone who may not have read it I would recommend obtaining a copy forthwith. This is but the latest in a series of outstanding editorials on the local body politic; the primary focus is on government's private agenda to amend our constitution, reduce voting constituencies and the number of the people's representatives who will sit in Parliament.

While late in coming it appears that at last there is an increased public awareness of the peril facing us and yet there is still abysmal ignorance, or apathy, by many as to what the fuss is all about. Such attitude is reflected in the comments of a Bermuda resident in today's RG regarding the UBP boycott of the Throne Speech: "For some reason they feel there are certain things they do not need to attend. They need to take their defeat gracefully and stop acting in such a childish manner.'' This person and others who may share this view, it seems to me, are living in a fool's paradise. The intransigence of Government and its unseemly haste to ram this thing through the House necessitates such strong counter measures by the UBP, on behalf of all Bermudians, if democracy is to prevail. The issue transcends petty party politics -- it is, simply, about democracy versus autocracy.

Government would have us believe that our present system of dual seat constituencies is manifestly unfair and needs to be changed -- "one man one vote'' etc. as has been parroted ad nausea, but history does not support this claim. It is fact not fiction that for 30 years the PLP never won an election nor, more significantly, did they ever win the popular vote. When the PLP did finally win with, it can be said, the help of the UBP, it was hardly a landslide victory. In terms of popularity it was PLP 54 percent and UBP 45 percent with the NLP and others taking up the slack. Hardly an overwhelming mandate, after two years in power, for what the PLP government is planning now to impose on the people of this island.

After all is said and done probably the fairest form of electoral reform is some version of proportional representation -- this is surely an idea whose time has come. It should be seriously considered. In any case what we are facing now is arguably the most critical and far reaching, in its implications, of any event ever to threaten the well being of every man, woman and child on this island.

It is puzzling that through all of this the silence from Government House, and other quarters, is deafening. Apparently unless or until Her Majesty's Government is ratified that a clear majority of Bermudians are not in favour of what is being promulgated by our government there will be no constitutional conference notwithstanding the fact of past custom and practice. Certainly the likelihood of our government voluntarily going to the people by way of a referendum is absolutely nil. In the meantime, boycotting the throne speech and similar actions may help to make the British government sit up and take notice.

John Locke, the noted 17th century English philosopher and political theorist who opposed absolutism (despotism) saw the free consent of the governed as the basis of legitimate government. According to Locke obedience depends on governments ruling for the good of the governed.

DAVID M. SKINNER Smith's