One of the most important powers an elected official in Bermuda — or anywhere else, for that matter — can possess isn’t actually enumerated in any constitutional job description. It’s the power of persuasion, the talent to sway opinion — to win over the minds, if not always the hearts, of voters.

The art of political persuasion takes many forms and involves many factors: arguments that engage both the intellect and the emotions; appeals to voters’ self-interest as well as their sense of community and the greater good; insights into individual human nature and political group dynamics; and an ability to charm and, when necessary, cajole the electorate.

Many metrics are used to measure political success. But among the most important these days is what’s increasingly being called “optics” by both Bermuda’s political professionals and the keyboard warriors of online comments sections — or, in plain English, public perception.

How a policy or a decision is perceived in the eye of the vote-casting beholder is often as consequential as its content. It’s not simply a matter of fretting more about appearances than substance, although politicians have been prone to do this since the beginning of time.

It’s no longer enough for a government to simply set the public agenda. It’s imperative that it then manages whatever public narrative emerges, to make compelling arguments for policies and decisions. Controversial matters that voters may be wary of — and opponents are likely to seize on as vote-winning wedge issues — require as much salesmanship as statecraft to ease their path through the legislative process and to win over reluctant public opinion.

Political leadership frequently involves getting people to do what they don’t want to do, and accepting it if not actually liking it.

And getting people to do what they don’t want to do means being able to take the measure of the public mood and tailoring your message accordingly. This requires a combination of firmness and tact, a commitment to overriding policy goals tempered by a sympathy for the public’s view, principled positions along with flexibility and adaptability when it comes to how best to frame a debate.

This is not to suggest the superficial should ever be elevated over matters of substance. Political communications is not a matter of public relations trumping the public interest, of incessantly repeated, sugar-coated talking points drowning out what people sometimes need to hear from their leaders when it comes to why and how a necessary but unpopular decision was arrived at.

Public opinion cannot always be accommodated in the decision-making process, of course. But it should also never be ignored by any politician interested in re-election.

For the reality is that party politics in Bermuda is fundamentally a struggle between two competing messages, rather than two opposing ideologies.

A few shrill voices at either end of the political spectrum notwithstanding, we are not a society of extremes: we tend to seek and value consensus. Political blood sport, while certainly not unknown in Bermuda, is far from being the national pastime.

Instead, Bermuda politics is primarily an information-based competition, one that requires a deep knowledge of and keen sensitivity for the currents of public opinion.

The party that best understands this and comes up with what’s interpreted to be the most persuasive message by the most voters wins elections. The party that might actually boast policies better designed to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of Bermuda residents will invariably lose if its message is tone-deaf to the concerns, fears and anxieties of those residents.

Given that we live in a time of continuing economic insecurity when people are worried about their jobs, their healthcare, their pensions, their children, their very ability to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families, there are many such concerns that have to be acknowledged and incorporated into a viable, political communications strategy.

The backlash against proposed changes to immigration policy, for instance, are motivated far more by Bermudian fears of economic displacement, of being squeezed out of an already recession-diminished employment market, than by xenophobia or cultural nativism.

The fact is these new policies will actually help to create more jobs for native-born Bermudians and, ultimately, deliver more benefits to working families and those in the middle.

And this, of course, should have been the primary focus of the Government’s sales pitch for these reforms, not a footnote belatedly attached to the legal, constitutional and even the powerful ethical arguments.

Effective political communications will never make an unpopular decision universally beloved, nor will they ensure that reason always triumphs over riled-up sentiment.

But public perception of a decision is often just as important to its acceptance as the substance of the decision itself. As the very term suggests, political “optics” have everything to do with the way voters see things — and a great deal to do with how they cast their ballots at elections.