April 28, 2012Dear Sir,Well crafted letter (April 28) Allan! On the Derek Burgess comment, to which you referred, I would say, not in defence of the One Bermuda Alliance’s or The Royal Gazette’s non-reply, but technically, what his comments may have been interpreted to mean is that under the previous system, it was possible to have 45 percent of the vote and retain government, not that it ever happened, which is your point. Fortunately in the Bermuda case it has never been the case that a minority of the electorate has won the majority of the seats and formed government. So to your point, even under a jaded United Bermuda Party system the UBP while in government always achieved the government with the popular vote. What you’re also saying is let’s move on comparing oneself to the past is not putting one in good standings currently, if what you accept today is only scarcely better and insufficient.Another point I would like to raise is that even if you had proportional representation controlling the number of seats in the House, as long as you have first past the post forming the government, technically we are not in much better shape. Whichever party gets the majority even by half of a percent still takes the whole government. We don’t achieve the level of cooperation that will justify the electorate’s need for participation or sense of inclusion by proportional representation alone. There would need to be a reform which mandated that whoever or whichever group/party with a majority forms the government will do so, on some formula that also respects the proportionality of the election results. This inevitably means a mixed cabinet will be a mandated construct, which is a from of coalition but perpetual. No more my turn your turn, solely.I can understand your amazement that the Progressive Labour Party is not looking to expand or reform the electoral process anymore than it has. You would think that because it’s supposed to be the people’s party, democratisation would be their manifest and natural agenda but it isn’t. Truthfully it never has been, although long ago somewhere in its distant beginnings rumblings remaining from the secretive progressive group who called for enfranchisement among other things, formed part of the backdrop of the PLP. Today their argument or ethos is something like: “Why are you calling for openness and transparency now, and why are you so interested in reform and democracy now, when you had 40 years to put it in place and didn’t? Give us a turn for a while, just as you had it and we will get to it in our own time, but only if and when we ever decide on it, because like it was once your turn now its our turn so suck it up.”So I can only urge all those, like you Allan, who want to see electoral reform you would need a massive publicity campaign that causes an intellectual revolution on how we as a Bermudian public and electorate think politically. Trying to piece meal with politicking to gain control over “the house that Jack built” isn’t cutting it. Pushing candidates and people in the field of politics who have no idea as to where the country needs to go isn’t the formula. Bermuda needs to support reform thinkers or we shall surely die. There is no space in this world or time for mediocrity, we either rise and become a modern country and live up to the modern challenges, which demands plurality, diversity and absolute inclusion or we shall crumble socially and economically. The politics of today that is relevant for our time, is a non-optional and serious matter. The world is moving fast and the opportunities for a small country like ours come and go quickly, we miss a step and we fall several steps behind.KHALID WASI