Government's decision to close down the corporations of Hamilton and St. George's has all the hallmarks of the Brown administration.

Ignoring submissions from the public, taking decisions in private without consultation and putting up an unresearched justification for shutting down the corporations is increasingly typical of how Premier Ewart Brown's administration does business. At least the Cabinet was consulted this time. Minister without Portfolio Walter Roban, whose first task since joining the Cabinet is this, gave two reasons for the abolition of the corporations. The first was that it is "simply impractical and unwieldy in 2009 in such a small jurisdiction to have competing arms of government" and there were also some claims that there are duplication of services, unnecessary subsidies and the like.

Some of that may be so, but what has not been answered, especially in the case of Hamilton, is whether the services that the Corporation does deliver can be done more efficiently by the Government departments into which they will be subsumed. The guessing here is that they can't.

This also suggests a complete U-turn by the Government with regard to decentralisation. To be sure, the Progressive Labour Party has always disliked the corporations, with some reason, because they are elected through a property franchise.

But that's different from allowing and even encouraging autonomy for public services. In 1998, the PLP promised elections and an increased role for parish councils. That has never happened and now the corporations will be abolished if Cabinet gets its way. Evidently, centralisation and concentration of power in as few hands as possible is now the mantra of the Government.

The second justification for abolition is the failure of the corporations to reform the franchise, and here it is clear that reform is needed. Clearly all adult Bermudian residents of Hamilton and St. George's should have a say in how they are governed. The problem comes with regard to landlords and businesses that pay the bulk of taxes in Hamilton and whether they should be represented.

Mr. Roban claimed: "Electoral reform has not been effected in a manner that gives comfort to those of us who value the franchise."

But this is inaccurate. It may be that Mr. Roban, who only joined the Cabinet last week, was unaware that the Corporation of Hamilton sent a range of reforms to Government in 2008 to which it has had no response. This included the proposal to widen the franchise to include all registered voters in Hamilton while allowing existing voters to continue. That may not be a perfect solution, but it is a start. Ignoring it, then announcing that the corporations will be abolished, is one way to make decisions, but participatory democracy it's not. None of the above is to say that the corporations have been perfect in the handling of their affairs. This newspaper continues to campaign for them both to open their meetings to the public.

The Corporation of St. George's surrendered much of its autonomy when it stopped collecting rates and accepted a Government subsidy and struggles to deliver services because of its limited tax base. But St. George's remains a special place in Bermuda that needs and deserves special attention from St. Georgians. Whether an outsourced group of consultants or a body of civil servants can give that same care and attention is doubtful.

Similarly, the Corporation of Hamilton has clearly had some serious issues in recent years and decision making very nearly came to a standstill at one stage. But a reforming group of aldermen and councillors now in place seem to be improving matters, and it is disappointing that their efforts will now be killed.

It is hard not to be mindful of the experience of another capital whose governing body fell afoul of the leader of the country. The Greater London Council led by "Red Ken" Livingston was a major thorn in the side of then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who eventually decided to abolish the GLC and take its functions into the central government.

When the Labour Party came into power, it reestablished city government and gave London much of its autonomy back. The first mayor of London? A slight less red Ken Livingston who, as it turned out, did a very creditable job leading the city.