As the former broadcaster Joe L. Brown would say, “My, my, my!” The other day, in Parliament of all places, one member from the opposite side said to Robert King, “We are going to fight.”

OK, understandably, he did not mean a physical altercation. Still, the optics were not good, especially at a time when street violence is prevalent and amid the tragic story of a 37-year-old mother killed in her own living room. The death of Diante Trimm still lingers in the community and was highlighted in an editorial.

But then Mr King in his maiden speech and talking across the floor, was speaking about accountability and serving the public’s interest as Members of Parliament rather than their own. It may have been relevant but a touchy subject for a newcomer. He was seen as throwing stones in a crowd.

Parliament has descended into a culture where taking personal shots at one another has become the norm, where parliamentarians delight in the denigration of their opponents. Mr King, while a newcomer, comes from a legacy known as conservative Blacks who historically in the eyes of the Progressive Labour Party use the “duck” principle — “if it walks like a duck, quacks, can fly and has flippers for feet, it’s a duck”.

Politically speaking, establishing him early was important and a great opportunity for the PLP.

Mr King could not slide in innocuously; rather, he was tagged with 60 years of PLP bias that he will need to unpack. I remember the first years after the historic first PLP victory, United Bermuda Party Members of Parliament came off the “Hill” suffering plantation fatigue. Perhaps over the generations, Mr King has inherited a tortoise shell for skin and is impervious to the harsh political environment.

It did not have to be this way, but it is. We have to tread through slow political evolution to get to a sustainable synthesis. In the meantime, we have two political parties representing the historical political dialectic with a third party entering the arena promising to do better and an independent initiative hoping to spearhead a systemic change.

The PLP, in deflecting from rumours of internal conflicts with the leader, boasts of openness and democracy at work because it has a secret space to air differences. It can justify its position by saying everyone in Bermuda can join, but that has been the case for 60 years — yet there are no flocks of people lining up to join.

The democracy it speaks of is a members-only privilege totalling fewer than 2,000 paid-up members, and with active participation far fewer than that within a 60,000 population. The PLP calls private members’ privilege to hear party dissent transparency. The Trinidadian calypso song What Happens in De Party (Stays in De Party) is the mantra for this administration.

Bermuda is in a sad state when it comes to its basic understanding of democracy, and worse when we consider participatory democracy.

Yes, we have one man, one vote of equal value. However, when you examine this construct, the only value is to vote every four years for a person not necessarily of your liking but rather what has been handed to you.

The people need a bill of rights that shows clearly, as a member of this jurisdiction what your vote is worth and what is attached to that right.