Everyone has a story to tell and most of us quite naturally want our stories to be heard. So for me last week’s march was no surprise. Nor were the numbers of those who took part. Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of people out there who are hurting, who are angry and who are disappointed. They are out of work or underemployed and struggling, wondering, if not worrying about what may be coming next. For those who were looking for a voice, the organisers gave them a march and a manifesto around which they could rally.

The meetings which preceded the march also presented an opportunity to speak and be heard. I only attended the one meeting the night before and what I heard from those who spoke from the floor reflected the concerns and worries of fellow Bermudians, shared in varying degrees, I am sure, but nonetheless shared by the many and not just the few up and down our Island home; and to be fair, Mr Editor, I expect that many of those concerns and worries, if not known, are shared by members of both Government and Opposition.

Hostility isn’t helpful folks. Neither is derision. A void was filled for a day, but key questions remain: are the voices of people being heard and are their issues being addressed? These are questions that go once again to the heart of our system of governance, a favourite subject of mine, if not preoccupation, I confess.

It doesn’t always have to come down to a march, I don’t think, although the political history of Bermuda would suggest otherwise. Protests and campaigns off the Hill have in the past netted more success than efforts on the Hill when it comes to fundamental change. Last week I touched on some of the mechanisms that Bermuda lacks when it comes to more democratic governance. But sometimes it is also a matter of approach.

Take the SAGE report and recommendations as an example. Government promised widespread consultation at a very early stage, public meetings even. I don’t think there has even been one. People notice these things. Sure, there have been meetings with the unions, but that is not the same thing. Voters want to know what their government is thinking and in a forum where they can also express their views. Yes, there was a debate in the House on the Hill, for those who tuned in, but it lacked direction: there was no firm indication from the Government benches on what if any of the recommendations they would take up, or not.

It may be that Government’s strategy is tackle the recommendations in slices, or small bites if you will, like the recently announced closures of sub-post offices. We cannot be sure because we don’t know. This, coupled with the absence of promised meetings, is what helps fuel suspicion of hidden and maybe not-so hidden agendas.

The OBA Government also failed to move on another critical front that would have given people an opportunity to participate when it failed to establish a SAGE-like commission to investigate and make recommendations on how to raise (greater) revenue. It is the other half of the equation and even the erstwhile SAGE Commission chairman made the point, several times as I recall, on the usefulness of a mirror commission on revenue.

Again, people notice these things and they don’t forget.

We are told our economy is turning around, that there is evidence of some green shoots and a growing confidence that we are turning the corner. But it is a wide turn on any view. Things are tough and even when they turn around they may still be tough.

This isn’t just about Bermuda either. We see and hear reports about what’s occurring in our great neighbour to the West:

* The American dream is in trouble: the US middle class is no longer the world’s most affluent, having slipped behind Canada;

* The Chinese economy is projected to overtake that of the US by the year, bringing to a close their long reign as the world’s wealthiest nation.

A new book “Capital in the Twenty First Century” by Thomas Piketty is all the rave (my copy is still on order: Amazon cannot keep up apparently) and early commentators tell us that his work suggests that:

* Trickledown economics could have been true, but just happened to be wrong;

* Inequality surges when both population and the economy grow slowly; and that

* Democratic governments are going to be challenged like never before having to deal with an increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

Mind you, early reports also suggest that while inequality will always with us, as a feature of capitalism, there continue to be ways to spur individual initiative (to want to get ahead) and to foster the generation of new wealth: through taxation, government policy and education. The latter is crucial too. The author makes the point: democracy is more than just one person, one vote of equal value, it is also the promise and delivery of equal opportunity, and to make that theory work a good education is essential.

It makes you wonder then about the wisdom of cutting back on funding in education and in scholarships in particular. This too, is a Ministry that has seen its second Minister in as many years, now handled jointly with another equally important Ministry, Economic Development; not to mention the loss of a Commissioner for Education after all the promise and the hope his controversial selection was supposed to bring. Hardly the sort of message needed, you might think.

But these are the bigger issues and, sadly, we continue to stumble along with a system of government that appears to feed right into, if not sow division which is neither helpful nor productive. Go figure.