“In a democratic country possessing representative institutions, sometimes it is necessary to defer to the opinions of other people.”;— Winston Churchill

For a full week the drumbeat of discontent grew louder by the day; not just on the streets of Hamilton, but within the besieged Cabinet Office itself. And Wednesday’s abrupt resignation of a senior Cabinet minister, a founding member of Bermuda’s governing party and one its most visible faces, underscored this point in the most public way imaginable.

It was a particularly dramatic moment in a week certainly not lacking in drama. Arguing he could no longer rely on moral suasion or appeals to reason to influence the sometimes peremptory leadership style of the government he served in, Shawn Crockwell opted to step down as tourism minister.

By doing so he became the first Bermuda Cabinet minister to resign over a point of principle in many years. He chose voluntary exile in the Siberia of the back benches rather than to remain in a Cabinet, which he said had demonstrated an inability or unwillingness “to listen and to appropriately gauge the temperature of the community, to understand the frustration and lack of trust that has been created”.

It was a sternly worded rebuke, one that echoed sentiments being heard not just on the marches protesting the Government’s proposed immigration reforms, but also in homes, offices, clubs and churches around the island.

This wasn’t just a matter of poor public relations on the Government’s part, although its political salesmanship on the issue was shockingly poor. The Government didn’t simply lose control of its belated and rudimentary policy narrative, one that never came close to portraying the full picture of problems surrounding current immigration practices and explaining the potential solutions being proposed. Frankly, Cabinet came perilously close to losing control of the island.

Political pragmatism rather than what amounted to a kind of high-handed coercion was always going to be necessary to smooth the passage of legislation intended to rationalise Bermuda’s unsatisfactory immigration protocols.

Such legislation is very much in the best interests of justice and the long-term public interest. Some aspects of the existing guidelines covering grants of Bermuda status and permanent residency have, after all, been deemed to be both unconstitutional and in violation of international law by the courts. And powerfully persuasive economic, ethical and even cultural arguments can be made to support a more streamlined and fairer approach to immigration. But these arguments weren’t made by the Government; at least not until after the reforms were handed down as a fait accompli with no attempt to encourage community buy-in by way of a consultative process or educational programmes.

At this time of economic insecurity and heightened social anxiety, with Bermuda politics growing increasingly polarised and dysfunctional by the day, surely it was obvious a Big Tent approach to this most contentious of issues was called for — one that would have facilitated inclusivity, civility and respect for diverse views.

Not all opponents would have been won over, of course. But a coolly arrived-at consensus satisfactory to most is always better than a heated conflict that agitates and unsettles all. And few other matters in Bermuda can be guaranteed to generate as much political Sturm und Drang — even during times of relative prosperity and social stability — as immigration.

Opponents naturally enough seized on the issue, with the more extreme and politically minded among them portraying the reforms as a ham-fisted attempt to pad the electoral rolls with new voters and to alter Bermuda’s demographics.

Did opportunism factor into their calculus? Absolutely. But then they saw this as a political opportunity like no other. For unlike the Government’s leadership, they were fully aware that in the present post-recessionary climate, immigration would quickly become a lightning-rod issue for all manner of tensions that have accumulated over the past decade. These social and economic concerns range from lingering unemployment and underemployment to the impact of pending austerity measures on everything from schools to pensions.

Make no mistake about it, most of the people drawn to Parliament Hill last week weren’t demonstrating against long-term residents or looking to further the sometimes glaring transparent political agendas of some protest organisers. Rather, they were there to voice concern about an uncertain present and the unpromising futures faced by their children. They were seeking reassurance and support from their government, not hoping to replace it with mob rule. A sensitivity to the popular mood and an understanding that policy must, to some degree, always be guided by it is hardly to substitute leading for following, as some in Bermuda’s Cabinet have argued in recent days. Any successful politician knows he must be careful to catch the drift of opinion, to expect the inevitable (and nothing was more predictable than last week’s protests) and to craft and win acceptance for policies that best reconcile conflicting interest and views with what’s best for the community. The broad lines of any policy, particularly any major policy, must always be shaped so they conform, at least in general terms, with public opinion. This requires intelligence, patience, open-mindedness and a willingness to judiciously compromise when necessary. After all, a foolish and stubbornly held consistency is not only, as the poet said, the hobgoblin of little minds, it is also the hallmark of failed politicians the world over.

In fact, the only assured way for a principled politician to actually remain consistent amid rapidly changing circumstances is to change with them while keeping the same overriding purpose in mind.

“A statesman in contact with the moving current of events and anxious to keep the ship on an even keel and steer an even course may lean all his weight now on this side, and now on the other,” said British statesman Winston Churchill. “ ... We cannot call this inconsistency: in fact, it may be claimed to be the truest consistency.”

Simply put, while a political objective might not change the best route for reaching it might do. Several times.

The Government’s decision to withdraw its immigration legislation and adopt a more gradualist and inclusive approach to the whole question of reform is welcome. But it’s the approach it should have taken from the outset. The self-inflicted wounds that the Government experienced and the trial by ordeal that Bermuda was put through last week could have been avoided if, as Mr Crockwell has said, Cabinet was able to place compassion, pragmatism and prudence ahead of its own authority.

Bemoaning that his colleagues had consistently shown an “inability to put aside the political pride, listen and make the required adjustments,“ the former tourism minister said: “Time and time again, it’s not just the decisions that have been made but the manner in which they have been made, and the inability to communicate appropriately with the black community, in particular, to bring them along and get them to understand what we have to do.”

He’s absolutely right, of course. Churchill said much the same thing, only more succinctly: “I am their leader; I must follow them.”