Exhortations to do better are fine as far as they go, Mr Editor, which usually isn’t very far, really. But maybe, like me, you cannot help but think that we could use something more.

Sure, we should call out bad behaviour when we see it and condemn in strong terms what we regard as irresponsible. What the heck, if nothing else it makes us feel like we have done something. But whether it will actually change anything is another matter. Entirely.

How about we focus instead on what change might actually bring about improvement to the system of government we do have. I know, I know, that could make for a long column or series of columns, and by all means join in.

Let’s start with the obvious. There is no getting around this: no matter what system you have, it will always come down to the people whom we elect to represent us, their character, their personalities and what they each regard as acceptable or unacceptable in the cause for which they serve. Sadly, and all too often, that comes down to party and power: what best serves their respective parties to acquire power or to retain it.

That, friends, is party politics — an influence that cannot be overlooked or underestimated here and elsewhere.

The question is whether these narrow political considerations must be the be-all and end-all. Here I think of the late United States Senator, Ted Kennedy. An odd choice, maybe. Let me explain. He was in the news late last month with the opening of the Edward M Kennedy Institute in Boston.

A number of former colleagues were in attendance, from both sides of the House I might add, to honour not only his years of service in the US Senate (decades) but what he was able to accomplish during those many years, including, and most particularly, during those times he was very much in the minority and working with a strong and determined Republican majority. President Obama put his finger on what made Senator Kennedy unique and a valuable lesson to all.

“Ted understood”, he said, “that the only point of running for office is getting something done. Not to posture. Not to sit there worried about the next election or the polls.”

Getting something done, hmmm: hold that thought.

President Obama did not stop there when looking back on Senator Kennedy’s career and the changes he had seen and had to navigate in Washington.

“Ted grieved the loss of camaraderie and collegiality, the face-to-face interaction,” the US president said. “I think he regretted the arguments made to cameras instead of to colleagues, directed at a narrow base instead of to the body politic as a whole.”

Sounds very, very familiar, and relevant, does it not?

I remember, too, what Senator Kennedy used to say when criticised for the compromises and the accommodations he had to make with Republicans to advance issues on which he was keen to see change. I used to quote it a lot when I was on the Opposition benches on the Hill: “Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

But here’s another important thing: Senator Kennedy was not able to achieve what he did just because he was a pleasant chap or persistent or hard-working. He may have been all of those things, and others, too, I know, but that is not what made the difference.

What made the difference was that he was able to work within a system that not only encouraged but valued his contributions. Furthermore, his opportunity to contribute did not depend on the grace and favour or the largesse of those in power, ie, the majority. There was the congressional means by which he could work, accepted and understood by all on the DC Hill.

This is why parliamentary committees are so important — or should be — in the Westminster system: whether Opposition or Government MPs. Senators, too.

Committees are the means and opportunity to keep a close, continual and keen eye on the work of the executive — ie Cabinet — and the expenditure of our money, and to assist in the formulation of policy on the key issues of the day.

This is why an active Public Accounts Committee should be valued and the work members are meant to perform should be supported, not stymied or discouraged — whether that work be on the Port Royal Golf Course, America’s Cup or a new airport. The same goes for attempts to set up committees to tackle the controversial and the difficult, such as immigration policy.

It requires vision and leadership to make this happen. The approach required is most certainly not what we see employed far too often in the annual Budget debate when Government ministers, through their briefs (a joke), effectively throttle debate. The practice actually (and, in some cases, deliberately) closes off time for questions and criticisms to which ministers should gladly and willingly be called upon to respond for the greater cause of transparency and accountability.

Forgive me, Mr Editor, but I like to believe that a more mature approach and a more mature system of governance will foster greater maturity all-round. For sure, it is time to stop blaming the other guy for failure to move off on much needed reform.

• Readers are invited to share their views either on The Royal Gazette website or write to jbarritt@ibl.bm