Dear Sir,

There are at least two strategies towards finding that unassailable majority which gives political life within a country with the comfort of knowing that, whatever obstacles and challenges emerge, they will have a majority that can manage. Yet having a majority, while helpful, isn’t enough when broad consensus and participation are also needed.

Our political experiences over the past 50 years have brought us to a point where society has become tired of the hypocrisy, corruption, hidden agendas and arrogance of the political parties.

The American society with more than 100 years of political parties, for the same reasons are expressing similar sentiments, which has become manifest in this present presidential contest. Otherwise, from where would a Donald Trump or a Bernie Sanders find such popular support?

Bermuda under the Westminster model has a much more rigid two-party system, polarised by its racial dynamics that make change difficult.

A national crisis, real or perceived, could provide the catalyst to bringing more people into action. The immigration issue has the potential of mushrooming towards a larger political awakening.

The dynamics are simple: any movement that shrinks the One Bermuda Alliance’s support base doesn’t just minimise its electoral possibilities, it destroys them. On the other hand, issues such as immigration reform as presented galvanises the black support base of the Progressive Labour Party, giving it a clear electoral advantage.

To make the PLP more contemporaneous, gentile and to alleviate the fear of a repeat performance, a conservative base must be added. This is where one approach towards attaining an unassailable majority would mean the collusion of disaffected OBA and marginalised PLP forming a new nucleus, possibly aided by the churches or the People’s Campaign, which would effectively change the PLP to something else.

The other method, let’s call it the Fahy method, which would be to create a whole new population of voters via immigration. Don’t be alarmed because this form of vote infusion will and must happen anyway; the only question is when and over what time period?

If it were done aggressively, there would be a large body of voters disconnected from social history and puppets of elite manipulators.

Both parties have their internal caucuses split, hence the momentum for any political movement is not coming from Reid Street or Alaska Hall. The movement is back among the people to decide which tide will carry towards the next election.

KHALID WASI