Time for a change of government or in government? There is a difference; a profound difference. I have long been an advocate for a change in the way in which we govern ourselves or, more accurately perhaps, the way in which we allow ourselves to be governed. In fact, it is way past time for change and readers will know this is not the first time that I have flagged this as an important issue. The most recent occasion was in my submissions to the British Parliament, probing the relationship between His Majesty’s Government and its Overseas Territories.

This time the need for change has been underscored by the recently announced increase in our Belco bills, the impact of which is now being felt keenly by residents, many of whom are seriously angered not only by the extent of the increase — coupled with the abruptness of the announcement — but also by the explanation. Many are not buying the reasons given for the increase. The Government, too, is apparently troubled and has asked the Regulatory Authority to explain — in more detail, presumably — just how and why the increase was justified.

A seething public sit and wait for the explanation. But is that good enough? Is that the only way which the matter can be addressed under our parliamentary democracy?

Readers of my columns should have a sense of where I am going when I posit these questions.

We have not developed our governance architecture as fully as we could, and as we should, so as to address cases and controversial issues such as this.

The Belco increase, and approval of that increase by the Regulatory Authority, would be an ideal matter to be explored — investigated even — by a standing parliamentary committee comprising government and opposition backbenchers; ie, bipartisan. Senators could also be included. The key players and stakeholders, principally Belco and the Regulatory Authority, would be called upon by the committee to explain and justify the increase. The hearings would be public. We would expect the questions asked to be sharp and pointed. Both the questions and the answers would be there for all to hear and to see. That is how accountability and transparency works. Recommendations as well as decisions might be reasonably expected to follow.

The process of decision-making is thus opened up and the public let in on the dialogue and debate. There is no guarantee it will lead to a different decision, but the spotlight, and the pressure that comes with being in the spotlight, will have been brought to bear and decision-makers held to account.

I can think of any number of bodies that could and should be subject to such parliamentary scrutiny: the Bermuda Tourism Authority (tourism); King Edward VII Memorial Hospital (healthcare); Department of Education (education). There may be others.

Nor need there be but one standing parliamentary committee. Our legislators could easily populate three or four — and these committees and their work in effect would be complementary to that which is performed by the Public Accounts Committee.

Nor need we stop there when it comes to parliamentary oversight. There are issues, too, which arise from time to time that could be usefully explored by this means — the recent cyberattack(s), for example.

I appreciate, of course, that there are those who do not see such parliamentary reform as a priority. Pity that. There, again, readers may be familiar with the futility of doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.

Not a priority? Ought to be. Aside from any short-term benefits, there is long-term benefit to be pursued here, and that is changing our political culture. We need desperately to get away from the purely and solely adversarial nature of the Westminster system on which we have been weaned — now over 50 years’ worth since the introduction of responsible government under political parties after adoption of the 1968 Bermuda Constitution Order. Resources and talent are already limited in our small community and it is a shame to continue to devote so much time, too much time, not to mention energy, petty partisan political bickering and grandstanding.

The history of those 50-plus years weighs heavy. We have seen how the power of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Office has grown over time under successive governments and administrations. The role of the legislature and legislators has simultaneously diminished.

We need only remodel what we have and put in place meaningful parliamentary mechanisms through which collaboration, co-operation and cross-party consensus becomes possible. The major beneficiaries will be voters, aka taxpayers. But there is something in it for backbenchers and senators, too; they become more than just voices and votes in their respective chambers. There is some benefit here as well for the government of the day as it obtains assistance in decision-making.

Only the cause needs to be taken up.