The proposed amendments to the Bermuda Constitution are by far the most far-reaching amendments that have been proposed since the very existence of the Constitution.

By way of background, Bermuda has enjoyed a Parliamentary form of Government for 381 years. But its first written Constitution was introduced as recently as 1968.

The present Constitution was amended in 1973, 1979 and 1989. Previous amendments to the Constitution could be considered minor to the current proposed amendments.

Nevertheless, both political parties agreed that is was vitally important to discuss these at a Constitutional conference. The mere scale and the magnitude of the proposed changes demands that they be discussed at a Constitutional conference.

The proposed changes radically transform our political system. The changes briefly do the following: Eliminate parish boundaries for the purpose of elections; eliminate a number of MPs; eliminate a number of constituencies; gives the Boundaries Commission awesome power that the Constitution did not intend for it to have.

Essentially, a Constituency Boundaries Commission has as its responsibility to ensure that the constituencies shall contain, as far as is reasonably practicable, equal numbers of persons qualified to be registered as electors within parish boundaries.

Simply put, the present constitutional responsibility of a Boundaries Commission -- which must be appointed not less than three or more than seven years from the date on which the previous commission submitted its report -- is to take account of population shifts of registered voters in each constituency and make each constituency as equal as possible within parish boundaries.

Under the present Constitution, it would be clearly outside of the purview of responsibility for a Boundaries Commission to recommend the number of members that should comprise Parliament and/or the number of constituencies.

Moreover, I should think it would be hard to find any democratic country where such an unelected commission would be given so much power to decide the very essence of the governance of the country.

Many democratic independent countries have enshrined in their constitutions provisions for ordinary entrenchment and special entrenchment so that matters of fundamental importance cannot be lightly changed by the body politic.

Some ordinarily entrenched provisions might require two-third majority of each house and specially entrenched provisions would perhaps require a two-third majority and, probably, a public referendum.

Those amendments which are currently proposed could undoubtedly be considered in the category of specially entrenched provisions. They should, at the very least, be discussed at a Constitutional conference.

In addition, many independent Commonwealth countries and other democratic countries conducted referenda for major constitutional change. Britain conducted a referendum to decide whether or not they should go in the European Union.

Recently, Australia conducted a referendum on whether or not they should remain a Monarchy or become a republic.

The Barbados Prime Minister has also recently announced that his Government intends to have a referendum to decide whether Barbados should move from a Monarchy to a republic.

There are many other instances where countries have conducted referenda before major changes in their constitutions. It is worth re-iterating these proposed changes are going to radically change our Constitution, we need in the very least a Constitutional conference.

Sir John Swan, K.B.E., J.P.

is a former Premier of Bermuda