outside of the House of Assembly -- following the recommendation of the Boundaries Commission on the number of seats Bermuda should have is a shame.

In attempting to expand democracy and to improve representation, the Government should not be afraid of putting its plans to the public for a decision.

Its refusal to do so only gives more ammunition to those who believe that, far from being an effort to improve democracy, this is simply an effort to centralise and consolidate power in the hands of Premier Jennifer Smith and her cadre of supporters in the Progressive Labour Party.

The greater shame is that what could have been an open and honest debate on the issue of representation and the Constitution as a whole has become an ugly debate, largely conducted behind closed doors and increasingly filled with vitriol and unpleasantness.

Indeed, a debate on the framing of a Constitution which the whole community could support has instead become increasingly divisive and shows no signs of improving.

There is no question that the process of constitutional change has been mishandled thus far -- largely because there was no formal mechanism for changing the Constitution at the outset and there still isn't one.

The Opposition has to take some blame too. As effective as it has been in galvanising opposition to the process of Constitutional change, it has yet to publicly propose an alternative.

For two reasons, the current election system looks as dead as a doornail.

Firstly, the Government said it planned to change the system in its manifesto and that must carry some weight. Secondly, the system, especially with regard to Paget and Warwick, is unfair and needs reform anyway. That is no longer an issue for debate.

The issue is the best way to reform it. The Government's position -- without giving a number of seats -- is uncertain and could end up replacing a bad system with a worse one.

But the UBP has no proposal either, beyond stating that the number should be agreed at a constitutional conference. While any conference would require position papers published in advance and public debate, the UBP needs to give at least some indication of where it stands. If not, it is no better than the PLP.

Without some sort of indication, it becomes difficult to understand what would be asked in a referendum. Would it pose two alternative numbers of seats, two alternative electoral systems or a proposal for a new set of single seats or the current system? Both parties need to come clean and inform the voters on the system they believe will provide the most effective form of democracy. Then the people should be allowed to choose.