The French presidential election, in which two outsiders beat the main political parties and swept the ballots, is bringing out a political utility that could be useful for those interested in reforming Bermuda’s political system.

Often pundits have said “there are plenty of those who want to get rid of the Westminster system, but none of them know what to replace it with”. There is almost the unanimous presumption that our only options are to either have a parliamentary or republican executive-style government. Rather than subscribe to that orthodoxy, it may serve us to incorporate aspects of both that are good and develop a unique hybrid.

Change is generally a difficult thing to achieve and, unless something catastrophic happens, major change is unlikely to happen. Reason will dictate that change can occur, but only incrementally.

In that regard the old saying, “eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive” could be a guiding principle. Another consideration would be to adopt changes that are not only of consequence, but are easy to implement.

Giving the entire electorate the right to directly participate in selecting their leader, in our case the Premier, may be one way of providing the tool for creating a more inclusive society.

When the leader needs the mandate of the population, they have to appeal to a broader base and should become more accountable to the electorate. It’s not an automatic correlation, but surely more likely than what we have currently, where typically a dozen or so members, as a little cabal, from either party, decides who leads.

In Bermuda it could be the only way of breaking the polarised, race-based extremes caused by the history of parties, which emerged out of segregation, and the racial struggle that ensued — particularly given the perception that the vast majority are beyond that polarisation and want a united Bermuda, but are unable under current constructs to achieve it.

We already have an executive style that gives the Premier the exclusive role of choosing a cabinet, which in fact is the government. All we would need is to add one more seat to parliament, making it 37 members.

One seat will not be connected to any constituency, instead will be voted in as the leader of the country. Naturally this changes the parliamentary principle of “He who commands the majority” (of parliament) to whomever gains the majority of the electorate. That person will retain the same powers of the current premiership. However, they may in fact decide on a mixed cabinet, and it would be very interesting if he or she were an independent.

Sadly there has been very little appetite for reform displayed by our legislators or political parties. The last and perhaps only changes over 50 years were the move to single-seat constituencies and one person, one vote.

There are no doubt many reforms that will improve our democracy, increase participation of the electorate and foster more inclusiveness, that can also reduce partisan polarisation.

Having an elected senate and open primaries are other features worth examining, but maybe we could look at them one at a time. For now, let us observe what happens in France.