I recall a conversation with Sir John Plowman while among a small group setting. He made a startling admission of something he had learnt and had tried genuinely to convey to his political contemporaries. He said he recalled when they started the United Bermuda Party and blacks were included among what was hitherto a white domain. He felt that black persons would be only too pleased to be welcomed into their world. He continued to say that he learnt, however, that they were not truly happy and discovered what they really wanted was a world of their own.

We had a fuller discussion where we discussed that it was not that these black men were disingenuous about integration or working together across racial lines; it was that they had a world view and vision of how that integrated co-operation was to work, and benefit them and their community. The likes of Arnold Francis, E.T. Richards and even Sir John Swan were not just interested in the term “integration”, they were interested in “market share” — they wanted a piece of the business.

It was useless and an embarrassment for them to come back to their respective communities after years of fighting for things such as enfranchisement to present just integration — they needed to bring home “the bacon”. Needless to say, history bares a continuous trail of conflict between this issue of working together as a diverse, cohesive body and the concomitant need to satisfy the separate and specific demands within one’s own community.

That paradox has been the fault line that has befogged the notion of a united politic ever since the inception of party politics, and continues unabated to date. The One Bermuda Alliance will talk about the challenges and the frankness of debate within its caucuses, but cannot dismiss the blatant realities of why it has frequently faced open dissension and has been referred to negatively as the remake of the UBP. If the supportive bloggers with their bullish dismissals of dissidents are indication of attitudes, it is clear that the lessons that Sir John Plowman tried to impart have not yet dawned on far too many.

Yet this attempt at mutuality is the most noble of collective ideals. But even then the term “mutuality” implies that it is not to be of a solo exercise. The realities of Bermuda are diverse; we are not a homogeneous monoculture, therefore the approaches towards that reality of mutuality must meet the terrain of that diversity. Two parties cannot become one without full disclosure and an embrace of the demands that follow each party into the relationship. There will always be the kumbaya groups and individuals who will say “let’s all just get along”, but the rubber meets the road when we look at whose interest is seen to benefit and how.

The world lives by assumptions and one of the assumptions that has been the bane of Bermuda’s politics is what the two communities view as their lot or what have become acceptable norms. We hear the generalisations in statements such as “when the tide rises, all the boats on the ocean rise at the same time”, which is absolutely true. However, that assumption presupposes that everyone has a boat in the ocean. If your problem is you don’t have a boat, or your community doesn’t have enough boats, talking about the ocean tides is a useless debate, particularly if there is a dependence on boats to catch fish.

In reality, the conversation directed at my specific community should be about building boats and not about the ocean tides. However, if we are a joint body working mutually, then we can talk about building levees to raise the tides and about building boats. The longstanding problem that exists is a complete unwillingness, ignorance, inability or narcissism that has blocked the expression of mutual needs. Historically, those who have been forthright in expressing the specific needs have been marginalised and punished rather than honoured for making the party the mutuality it professed to be.

It has been easy for many to want and even to celebrate the notion of a political party that is a reflection of the entire community. It is the ideal, but it cannot be achieved without a heart and a soul committed to the exercise. That ideal is not a learnt Bermudian behaviour; sadly, the opposite is true with regards to learnt behaviour. That ideal would be dependent on characters who have demonstrably shown they have the heart and vision of mutuality. The Martin Luther Kings, Gandhis and Mandelas of the world were equally matched in popularity by their opposites — Cecil Rhodes, Barry Goldwater and the like. In politics, we get whatever we bargain with, no matter what the rhetoric. If Cecil Rhodes is the leader, however veiled or lucrative his designs appear, what you get in the end will be an apartheid.

Bermuda’s politics is chemical, not intellectual, nor a system of pure rationale. What you see is what you will get, and there is a chasm between the choices. I never grew up with a view to choose friends and associates because of race and therefore, politically, was always able to think of society as a whole.

However, I was not raised to be a fool, either, or to accept indignity levied in any direction and therefore forced to accept the reality of what ordinarily appears to be in my best interest and fully recognise that which is not. And I don’t instruct or demand my children to vote in a specific direction. In fact, I hope they have the mindfulness to make an informed decision.

That posture identifies me with the proverbial swing voters of Bermuda. Swing voters of all pedigree don’t vote because of race, but you must provide them the rationale to do otherwise.

Discussing the question of whether Donald Trump taped his conversations with James Comey may be a stretch for this conversation, but would you not agree that he should just simply say that one exists or not? Is that too difficult a question for a President of the United States of America?

I consider the same in my little Bermuda. If those who want to be my leaders cannot, or have an inability to, say specifically what they intend to do for my community and how, they should not assume generalised statements will have any effect on me.

Speak clearly and show the Bermudian voter what the world will look like for them.