BERMUDIANS should decide the final boundaries of Bermuda's new electoral map at the next General Election, former Premier Sir John Swan said yesterday, arguing that implementing the findings of an appointed Boundaries Commission would amount to "shortchanging democracy".

As the Boundaries Commission winds up its mandate to provide recommendations for redrawing the Bermudian political map, Sir John said yesterday that neither the Commission nor the convening of an all-party Constitutional Conference - the method favoured by the Opposition United Bermuda Party for amending Bermuda's political arrangements - was the appropriate vehicle for introducing wholesale change.

"A Constitutional Conference is more a forum for the exchange of ideas and information than it is a unified, decision-making body where input from all participants is deemed to carry equal weight," he said.

"The reality is that with a conference, you end up with a majority report and a minority report - and the Government of the day usually carries the majority report.

"So whatever their position is, becomes the position that's subsequently adopted for the country.

"All the other parties are there to see that it's a fair process, but they have very little say into what goes on because the position of the Government of almost always carries the day. So a Constitutional Conference would not solve the problem of what the public might think it wants or doesn't want in terms of political reform."

Recommendations on how Bermuda's dual-seat constituencies will be redrawn to create a new, single-seat electoral system are to be made by the Boundaries Commission, empowered by an Order in Council from the British last year.

Once debated in the House of Assembly, the Commission's recommendations and a report of the House debate, will be sent to Whitehall before a second Order is to be made to change the Bermuda Constitutional system. The British have said an all-party Constitutional Conference in the interim stage is neither ruled in nor ruled out.

"My view is that we find ourselves with an appointed Commission looking into the boundaries, looking at changing the voting system of Bermuda, and these are the sort of monumental changes that will have the most profound longterm consequences for how we govern ourselves," said Sir John.

"There seem to be grave reservations abroad about this process - not because many people would disagree with the concept of 'one man, one vote, all votes of equal value' but because of the manner by which this process has been brought about.

"The whole initiative still seems to be cloaked in secrecy, moving towards a foregone conclusion without the public being kept informed of what is transpiring - of being made aware of what is being done allegedly in their name.

"And so, at the end of the day, the public will feel as though they haven't had the opportunity they should have had - the ability to fully participate in the Commission's work and to help shape its final recommendations.

"And thus, what you could have are fundamental changes to our voting system being put into place without first having given the electorate any say about key matters that directly effect them.

"If the public want the changes proposed by the Progressive Labour Party - proposals that I imagine will be largely endorsed by the Boundaries Commission - then that's fine. If the public decides that, on the basis of the constitutional amendments favoured by the PLP, they'll re-elect them, that's all well and good.

"But the reason why the PLP is rushing this vitally important issue of constitutional reform - trying to get the new boundaries in place before the next election has to be called - is because they've committed themselves to something that now they're not sure the public likes.

"So they're trying to get the most radical constitutional rewrite in Bermuda's history rubber-stamped by the British and put into place before the next election. That way they don't have to deal with it the way they should have in the first place.

"They should not have presented such an important set of ideas - ideas that if implemented could substantially change the affairs of this country - to the public as a sound bite hidden away at the end of their last election manifesto. They should have devoted more than a couple of lines to it.

"There should have been more than a single reference to 'one man, one vote, all votes of equal value' and it should not have been tucked away among the 40-or-so other items in their platform. The constitutional amendments on the scale proposed by this Government are incredibly profound and wide-reaching - and yet they were presented in the most innocuous manner imaginable in the New Bermuda manifesto. No political party should get away with that."

Allowing the public to either ratify or reject important constitutional amendments was considered standard practice in any democratic society - and was the route Bermuda had taken in the past, said Sir John.

"When one refects on our past experiences, the process of arriving at conclusions on issues of such a magnitude has always been by way of a plebiscite - either a General Election or a referendum.

"We did it with the referendum on Independence in 1995. We said we'd give people a choice and they made their choice. For whatever reasons, they made their decision and we lived with it. I lived with it too. I said if it didn't happen, if the public rejected the Independence initiative, I'd resign - and I did resign. The people are always right in a democracy and politicians have to abide by their decisions.

"So at this stage I think we need to step back and ask ourselves how to achieve what we want to achieve as regards constitutional reform and, at the same time, maintain the integrity of the system we've developed in Bermuda. We must work towards ensuring that when a conclusion is arrived at, it is a collective one - that everyone feels comfortable about buying into.

"We have to ensure that there is a truly democratic process at work - one that meets with the criteria of what democracy is all about, an informed decision made by the majority of the people. If we assume there is to be no referendum on Government's plan and since a Constitutional Conference would only bring about a foregone conclusion that won't necessarily reflect the public's concerns or ideals - which, after all, any reform should be about - we should look then at the other alternative.

"This whole unhappy process appears to have been set in motion by what appears to have been a hasty decision by the British as a result of Government's representations on the constitutional situation in Bermuda. The Bermuda Government made their case to the UK on the basis that their manifesto contained a provision - one man, one vote of equal value - which is, no doubt true.

"But what they did not spell out to the British - or to the Bermudian electorate for that matter - is all the other issues that would have to be dealt with in order to arrive at 'one man, one vote of equal value'. They didn't (address) how many Members of Parliament would be changed, how many members of Cabinet would be changed and how the boundaries would be changed, for instance."

Sir John said the complexity of the situation had either been misrepresented or downplayed to the British and, as a result, Whitehall decided to allow the Bermuda Government to proceed with a wholesale constitutional rewrite through the vehicle of an appointed Boundaries Commission.

"As an election is to come up some time within the next 18 months," said Sir John, "it makes sense for the public to vote for one party or the other on the basis of their constitutional plans, knowing they had to live with the consequences.

"We therefore need to step back, point out to the British that a Constitutional Conference is not the way to proceed. Once we receive the report from the Boundaries Commission, the Bermudian parties should base their next election platforms around its recommendations. Whichever party wins the election would then have the support of the British in implementing any changes or (maintaining the current boundaries).

"As things stand now we could see changes introduced that are based on the desires of a few Members of Parliament who have won the support of one or two others MPs. We could see a major change to our whole lifestyle and the whole Bermudian body politic, the whole process of democracy Bermuda.

"If the people decide that's what they want; if they elect the party that they feel will take them in the direction they want, that's fine. But we have to keep the wishes of a handful of politicians out of this: we want the Bermuda public to determine their own constitutional future.

"The British should ask themselves if the want to compound their initial mistake with a second mistake - that is allowing the Boundaries Commission recommednations to be implemented without first being put to the people. If they reversed themselves on Gibraltar by allowing a referendum to take place on the issue of joint sovereignty with Spain, they can reverse themselves on Bermuda by way of insisting we have an election on the issue of constitutional reform - an election that will allow the people to determine their own political future rather than having it enforced on them by decree as it were."