Words almost fail me, Mr Editor, so I won’t be so long this week. So much has already been said; too much in some cases, and so much of it nasty, ugly and unhelpful, and, sadly, said by some who hide behind the cloak of anonymity. Shame on them. So I have no wish to add to the noise.

No single event or issue has brought us to where we find ourselves today. It is the culmination of much of what’s wrong with us as a community and how we are governed. It is more than just a reflection of who and what we are as a community. It is the weight of our history as a divided community whose divisions, racial and political, stand unresolved.

Yes, it is a sad day when our elected representatives are prevented from meeting. That’s why they were elected to meet and to discuss and to debate and to air their positions — and ours — in the Chamber on the Hill.

But it is equally sad that we continue to see those who are elected to govern continue to stick with a system of governance that not only encourages and promotes division, but feeds on it in fact, with little or no opportunity for collaboration. No, on second thought, scratch that: a system that does make collaboration an absolute requirement.

It is not just the Westminster system that is at fault here. It is also us and what we have so woefully failed to do within that system — despite promises to make much-needed change, such as strengthening the parliamentary committee system to let MPs on all sides weigh in on major policy issues — and that was an electoral promise of the present One Bermuda Alliance government.

It isn’t just major policy issues that should qualify for this sort of examination, but those that are known to be controversial and difficult. Immigration qualifies.

In times such as these, we need to stand back and ask not just where we went wrong, but where we may go right in future.

• Should collaboration and co-operation even be a choice: something that one party can elect to do or not? Or, rather, should it become a standard feature to engage not only our legislators but the people they serve? Only the urgency of circumstances should dictate otherwise. There is no urgency in the matters before us at present.

• Are there not times when matters of good governance should trump — and, yes, I use that word deliberately — good politics? At what expense to community must victory by one opponent over another be won? Success is not measured by victory alone, but by progress achieved thereby.

• Finally: since when did prior consultation become an unreasonable position?

What we must do now, notwithstanding our anger, our frustration and our outrage at what has gone on, is to critically examine the system of governance that appears to have failed us to this point and consider what more can be done to improve on what we have and do not have.

It may not be a complete answer to all our problems, but it makes for a good start. Otherwise, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes: different time, different issue, different government, even, but same results.

Tell me I am wrong, but what we see is déjà vu all over again.

It also goes without saying that we could use more maturity and stability around here in our politics and our system of governance. A little more common sense wouldn’t hurt, either, Mr Editor. Rarely does anyone succeed when they continually put cart before horse.