“In politics, a big tent or catch-all party is a political party seeking to attract people with diverse viewpoints and thus appealing to more of the electorate. This is accomplished by appealing to a very limited number of issues, characteristics and/or goals, yet capable enough to create the degree of unity necessary to fulfil said objectives. The big tent approach is opposed to ideological cohesiveness, conversely advocating multiple ideologies and views within a party.”

— Wikipedia.com

As members of the Progressive Labour Party, volunteers and I go about canvassing. We are afforded the opportunity to meet and to interact with people who also possess diverse life experiences and have strong opinions on how our society should exist.

One prime example of this was when we met a gentleman who had unfaltering views against same-sex marriage. He articulated in no uncertain terms that he would neither vote for same-sex marriage nor support a political party that advocated for it.

This gentleman’s convictions were not going to change one bit, no matter what other organisations or members of society were trying to endorse.

As we walked one house to the north, we were met this time by a lady with a totally different view point on same-sex marriage. She herself, having been in a relationship with another woman, was an advocate and therefore wanted to see all politicians at least discuss the issue in a mature and meaningful manner.

Essentially, these two individuals shared the same ideology on society and politics, but their views differed tremendously when it came to SSM.

Citing this example, it is incumbent upon any politician or political entity to realise that they should engage in what is known as a “big tent” or “broad church” appeal. Such an appeal encourages persons with diverse views on a variety of topics to come to express their opinions and outlooks in a reasonable manner.

Twelve months ago, the Liberal Party won the general election in Canada. This was largely owing to their broad-based, big tent appeal to the electorate. While embracing traditional Canadian values, the Liberal Party simultaneously reached out to smaller subsections of society, making them feel not only welcomed but also that they have a platform to air their views on non-traditional issues such as same-sex marriage and cannabis legalisation.

Perhaps sealing the deal for voters was the leader of the party, Justin Trudeau, who came across to millions as a moderate who was approachable by both prince and pauper.

Closer to home here in Bermuda, we have an electorate that generally want the same things for our island: a healthy economy, full employment, reduction in crime and an improved public education system.

Over the years, it has been on the agenda of politicians to achieve these very objectives that have caused division not only within society, but indeed within the political parties themselves.

The trick, or some may say the balancing act that local politicians need to master, is to engage different sectors of our society, listen to their concerns and work cohesively with these sectors to develop and to put forward policy proposals that are workable for the majority of Bermudians.

A recent example of this would be the work that was done behind the scenes to help Polaris Holdings move into a position of profitability. In a recent report, Polaris cited that it had worked in conjunction with the Corporation of Hamilton and the Bermuda Industrial Union in its restructuring plans.

Another example of a big tent approach was heard in a recent op-ed by John Wight, the president of the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce.

He made such a profound statement, one possessing merit, and with a call to our politicians to consider:

“ ... respected people in our community: black, white, business, labour, male, female; people not afraid to work together to set an agenda for Bermuda, for all of Bermuda, which both parties need to listen to ...”

The party that is able to embrace its own traditional views, the views of others and formulate them into workable policies that move Bermudians forward will not only win the next election but be able to govern in a more cohesive manner.

What do you think?