Maybe, Mr Editor, it is a waste of time and space going on about the need for greater collaboration and cooperation, as one keen reader of mine has suggested.

Sure, they are fine words, he says, that need to be said from time to time, but nothing is going to change.

On one thing he and I agree: nothing is going to change until the people who have the power to bring about change, make change happen.

He thinks that unlikely. It isn’t just that political parties have an interest in maintaining the status quo — and they do: while the one won power, the other only narrowly lost, and the opportunity in each case to maintain or regain power is both real and realistic — there’s also human nature.

Say what? First, let’s admit it, most of us enjoy the theatre and drama of politics, notwithstanding any protests to the contrary. It can and usually does make for entertaining viewing and interesting reading.

Secondly, as voters we also have our preferences and our opinions which lead us to support this person or that person, this party or that one and, face it, the more committed we are to the person or party, the more likely we are to want to see them advance the cause on our behalf. Some can and do take it to extremes. We call them the partisans. That’s the way it goes. We all understand that. It is therefore both inevitable and understandable that there will be disagreement.

The Opposition, as the very name suggests, is there to oppose. Sure, not all the time, but certainly where they disagree and believe they have a better answer. Similarly, where there is a law or a policy with which they disagree, there will be opposition. The official Opposition could, of course, put forward alternatives, which they are expected to do from time to time — and they do — either in the form of draft bills or motions.

But let’s also be clear on this, too. Compromise won’t always be possible. Nor should we expect it to be. It is hard to reconcile positions where one side believes a law or policy is the best solution, while the other side advocates for their repeal. These are the differences that help define the parties and lead to critical choices come election time.

Arguably, what counts is how we manage those differences in between elections, how we bridge the gaps, so as to prevent contentious issues from descending rapidly into battles of us versus them. Sadly, rare is the example where those in power will stoop to empower those who are not. If and when it does happen, it is usually some one-off charitable act, and not a deliberate, sustained attempt to build a sustainable, institutional framework to make empowerment possible regardless of who’s in or out of power.

This is the sort of change we need in Bermuda. Modifications, if you will, to our system of governance that will create opportunities for collaboration and cooperation even where there is a disagreement, and even where the language of disagreement becomes disagreeable, and yes, at times, offensive. Call the offender out by all means, but please don’t turn your back on the potential to do the country’s business by better means.

As you know, Mr Editor, it is why I believe passionately in cross-party parliamentary committees and the work that they could perform, for all of us. You may not believe in miracles, but I believe in possibilities that are worthy of pursuit. They could begin to change our political culture: building lines of communication and opportunities for cooperation.

It is no coincidence, Mr Editor, that our shortcomings are highlighted in times of crises. You might even think them a contributing factor.