House of Assembly debate; Bermuda is the leader of Britain's dependent territories with a Constitutional set-up which is already the envy of the group.

She was also right when she said that Bermuda did not have to copy anyone else when it changed its electoral system. Bermuda is quite capable of devising the fairest and best form of democracy in the world.

That is what makes Friday and Saturday's marathon debate in the House of Assembly so disappointing.

The result of the debate was always certain, but there was still a chance for Bermuda's Members of Parliament to debate and devise an election system which would guarantee not only one man one vote of equal value, but a representative system which would do away with the worst aspects of the Westminster system -- and stand the test of time.

There are many ways to devise a system which would be accepted and supported by all, and it is sad, although not surprising, that the Government was not prepared to consider a single alternative.

It's not surprising because the Government has already demonstrated its myopia and narrow mindedness. It refused to see that the warnings from people from backgrounds as diverse as Dr. Eva Hodgson, Gilbert Darrell and Sir John Plowman might have some validity, instead listening to its most loyal supporters, who only demonstrated their lemming-like willingness to walk off a cliff behind their leaders.

So why should the PLP listen to the warnings from the Opposition that a new government, with a mandate the same size as the PLP (53.45 percent of votes cast) will now have a precedent to change the Constitution after an election? Having proposed the most momentous changes to the Constitution since 1968, the PLP fell back on its most natural reflexes to force the measure through.

These Pavlov's dog-like reflexes are to first say the changes are being made because they are party policy and by definition good; if the changes are then criticised, the previous Government is blamed; then the process is defended by saying the UBP did the same, or worse. Stage three is the race card, when the measure is defended in terms of being a sign of racial emancipation or all opposition is rejected as white racism; finally, the measure becomes law because the Government says it will be so, and "we don't care what you (whoever "you'' are) think''.

But on Friday and Saturday, reflex Government was the order of the day. There were few informed arguments in defence of single seat constituencies, nor were valid arguments debunked.

In taking this approach, the Government exercised the right of majority. And in doing so, its members guaranteed constitutional instability and crushed the hopes of November 9, 1998 for real change and true participatory democracy.

The 26 MPs elected to the Government on that day demonstrated on Saturday morning that they are politicians; the shame of it is that they had the chance to be statesmen.