Bermuda’s airport is rapidly becoming a case study in how not to proceed with a major infrastructure development project. Clearly some critics are more fixated on bringing Government down than with reconciling its public tendering procedures and commitment to transparency with internationally recognised best practices.

Delighted to have a new issue handed to them but perhaps less intent on exposing abuses in the process than in pursuing some unapologetically self-serving electioneering, ongoing Opposition overkill on the airport project is now as tedious as it is tendentious.

By continuing to not so much blur as erase the line between real and obvious Government missteps and overstated and unproven claims of “corruption” and “malfeasance”, the Opposition is doing a disservice to the electorate and perhaps to its own interests.

For this type of excessive and rancorous partisanship can quickly lead to a type of scandal fatigue among voters.

But it seems unlikely that disenchantment with such blatant political gamesmanship will completely overshadow the raft of genuine questions surrounding the proposal to redevelop Bermuda’s airport.

These, of course, range from the value for money it will or will not afford the taxpayer, to the lack of anything even vaguely resembling a public consultation process on a multimillion-dollar plan that will remove effective control of the airport from Bermudian hands for decades.

Exasperation with its politically motivated detractors has led to some peevishly defensive outbursts on Government’s part and an after-the-fact rationale for the clearly ad hoc decision-making involved in the form of the recently completed Deloitte report.

But there has been no indication that Government is prepared to re-examine and rethink a project with highly consequential, long-term ramifications for the Island.

That would require reflection rather than simple reaction on Government’s part — and pausing for serious thought is not in the habit of governments here or elsewhere once they are wedded to even the most conspicuously counterproductive policies.

Reconsidering let alone reversing a course that has already been decided on is a rare occurrence indeed. Governments are always more preoccupied with the perceived short-term damage such about-faces will cause to their prestige than the very real long-term damage continuing with an ill-considered or arbitrary policy decision will have on the public interest.

Too often politicians subordinate their own better judgment to what they believe are overarching party political interests with the all too predictable result that saving face takes on more importance than best serving the needs of voters.

And so persisting in error becomes an occupational hazard faced by all administrations — and living with the consequences of completely avoidable policy failures is a burden all electorates must bear and which they all eventually revolt against.

For, inevitably, the credibility governments are so intent on upholding by blindly pursuing a failed policy is actually undermined by their own intransigence. Tone-deafness to the public mood and even the most constructive criticism, blindness to alternative ideas and a blandly unconcerned imperviousness to reason all eventually give rise to discontent.

Stubbornly adhering to a wrong-headed course of action does not demonstrate resolve, just bloody-minded obstinacy. Adaptability, flexibility and the willingness to recognise that different routes can lead to the same objectives are more important than maintaining a fixed and unchanging policy position in the face of mounting contradictory evidence.

In this instance Government’s aims are clearly well intentioned: a new airport will mean new sources of revenue for our depleted tax base and new job opportunities for Bermudians.

Enhancing and extending economic and social stability on an Island that is still reeling from seven years of recessionary turbulence are obvious imperatives in today’s Bermuda.

But to what degree that stability will be enhanced and extended by a public-private project which will see Bermuda give up 30-plus years of airport departure tax, landing fees and rental revenue to the Canadian developer is not at all clear.

Given the immediate economic benefits of the redevelopment will amount to just $155 million in “direct inward investment” and fewer than 200 new jobs are likely to be created, plausible cases can and are being made against proceeding with the proposal in its current form.

Clearly this is an instance where the costs involved might well outweigh the possible benefits.

Although it has yet to be demonstrated the airport project satisfies the requirements of common sense let alone those of even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis, Government seems unwilling to engage in any reflective thought on the matter.

Such inflexibility is regrettable but certainly not unknown in the political field. As one commentator has said “to recognise error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option [of all] in Government”.

Learning from experience remains abhorrent to most policymakers if what they learn is likely to conflict with decisions in which too much pride and political capital have been invested.

“If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us,” rued the poet Samuel Coleridge. “But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind us.”