Dear Sir,

This weekend I was impressed by the concern and dismay expressed by a local building contractor, who, as he puts it, can see the end of the road.

The end that he describes will be the conclusion of his pedigree because he doesn’t see the elements of succession among the next generation.

His feelings were visceral, as grimness showed in his face whenever we passed a foreign worker, and colour wasn’t the issue, either, because many we crossed were Jamaican.

The point was they were not Bermudian and he was realising something has happened that is eliminating our abilities through lack of opportunity and having been locked outside the market for so long.

He had no malice against the foreign worker but wondered what design caused this phenomenon. How could what he expresses not be obvious to everyone, leaders in particular.

I shared with him that there is a way out of this mess, but it will take vision, cohesiveness and resolve.

I have always appreciated the lessons of history because it tells the tale of how things happen. The differences in approaches, for example, between the systems leading to the Spanish conquest and that of the English; the difference between communist and capitalist, and even between oligarchs and fascist. It is important to know the difference because what works against one does not against the other.

Bermuda has always been an oligarchy where businessmen who dominate the market also directly control the Government and the Legislature. Hitherto the beleaguered, in reaction to their disadvantage, resorted to collectivism, withdrawal of labour and even militant protest, and all it did was to secure a decent place at the “bottom of society”.

Whenever strikes occurred to get better pay and working circumstances, the market generally adjusted to their demands and life went on, and the phenomenon that the young contractor sees continues unabated — because of relying on a socialist strategy against an oligarchy.

The real problem is the status in the marketplace, and people keep looking at the wrong statistics and places for the answers. The issue isn’t about who is earning more or less wages; it’s the balance of who owns the businesses and industries that pay wages. The tactic of fighting for benefits as opposed to strategies to achieve ownership leaves more and more people at the bottom.

All the militancy needs to be placed behind the ideas associated with business ownership. Which does not mean splitting up the pie; it means baking a better and whole new one if the vision is there. I told the young man that I have spent the better part of my life trying to do just that and with a little support, it is still very possible to infiltrate and secure a substantive position in the market.

It’s not the nature or the responsibility of an oligarchy to hand over the market; the system respects only those who take — that’s how they got it. With vision and resolve, your place must be taken with the same energy that caused people to march for an increase in pay. This time it’s your very existence at stake.

The question that needs answering is whether the needy people will stand up and support strategies to achieve it or let events replace them? You must know the oligarchs’ future is already secure and your purpose is not to end theirs; it’s to begin yours.

We need a better world for everyone and it must be our prayer with hope in the one that holds providence that good is on its way because not good enough has had its day.

KHALID WASI