“The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past”

— William Faulkner

It wasn’t just the timing of the February 5 announcement of pathways to status, Mr Editor, coming as it did so hard on the heels of the Government’s loss in the Devonshire North Central by-election, there was also the reaction that was sure to follow such a controversial decision on such a contentious matter: immigration.

You would have to be living in a whole other world not to know how any decision on the grant of status would be viewed. There was bound to be a strong negative reaction even in the best of times — and these are not the best of times. There are fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for a lot of Bermudians who see their world closing in on them on this small dot of 21 square miles that they call home, their only home.

There is also our history. Immigration has been used in the past as a tool to manipulate not only population demographics, but the voting electorate as well.

These are the facts, sordid and as politically unpleasant as they may be; and these are the facts that are not only known to but felt acutely, particularly by — and this has to be said, accepted and acknowledged — black Bermudians. Immigration heads the chapter on racism in the history book of this our biracial community.

This is not to say that we cannot and must not address this vexatious issue of permanent residency and status. In the context of human rights, and recent court decisions, it is imperative that we do. But there must also be a genuine attempt to do so as a community, knowing what we do about our history and our people.

There is no question, either, as Tony Blair is reported to have said: that even to make a decision is to be divisive; and, arguably, the harder the decision, the harder the reaction.

Surely, what counts when it comes to such decisions, and counts for a lot, is how we govern or, rather, how we allow ourselves to be governed.

I make no apology for continuing to assert this point: we need change in the way in which we tackle those issues that will continue to challenge us — whether it be immigration policies, human rights, an airport or mounting public and private debt.

Attempts at collaboration should be our first attempt, not the last. Discussions and/or hearings and/or public meetings on “the facts”, and an airing of the issues, should feature before and not after decisions are made.

The latter approach is not only disrespectful, but, in some contexts and on some issues, will be viewed as provocative and outrageous. This is where a committee system of the Legislature could be instrumental, leading by example. This is especially true where representatives from the other side plead for the opportunity to collaborate. But even then it should not depend on whether they appear willing or not; it should be standard operating procedure.

It is the parliamentary means to engage and enlighten; and in some instances may even lead to consensus on and off the Hill.

But I am not telling anything you do not already know or have not already heard. It is also not just a question of which approach to government you prefer, but which will serve us best as a community in the long run — and not in the short term, which is, sadly, but usually, the five-year electoral cycle.

We could also use a great deal more bipartisan forbearance; not just in words but in practice. Those who want it should show it. Those who have the power to make it happen should use that power to make it happen.

Some modesty in approach might also help: a recognition that things do not always go according to plan (do they ever?). A little more understanding and a lot less dismissiveness of the positions of other persons wouldn’t hurt, either. File this approach under sense and sensibility.

The key is to not only demonstrate these qualities but to put in place and in action the means whereby they can find voice so as to become the means by which we govern. It requires a new political will and a reorganisation of our system of government. Bernie Sanders calls it a revolution; and Donald Trump? Turning politics on its head.

Otherwise, Mr Editor, we will continue to reap what is sown.