Britain reviewing its relationship with its Overseas Territories is a natural progression towards developing equality throughout the remains of a former empire. We should all thank God that someone somewhere has kept their eyes on the ball. On a local level, this is what happens when we drop the word — more so the meaning of — “progressive” from our political discourse.

History has it right that the first organised political group of consequence was called the Bermuda Progressive Group. The success of the Theatre Boycott in kindling the flames for desegregation started with them, and through their efforts universal adult suffrage also gained momentum. Going on, the first effort of this morphing political move was to call itself the Bermuda Democratic Party, which was a clear indication of its progressive roots. However, that name was denied them because someone else with a different group already had a claim; hence, the name Progressive Labour Party was adopted.

That axiomatic change in name, and no other party that was dedicated to progressive thinking having previously existed, unwittingly was the death knell of the progressive movement, as the party became known more as a labour party. The presumption that because it is a labour party it should ordinarily translate to being progressive is a misnomer. Labour causes are separate from progressive causes.

Progressive legislation tends to look at society as a whole with the idea of intrinsically making everyone an equal participant. For that reason, progressiveness must remain vigilant to observe the tendencies that invariably creep into political systems that stifle democracy and participation, thus fostering dictatorships. This is the dilemma that afflicts Britain as a perceived global body. How does it define its role and the role of others in a new framework that gradually evolves towards a format where everyone is a more equal participant?

So, naturally, the role of the Governor comes into question. How do we change that role and not be subject to another form of local tyranny? Some modern jurisdictions, the United States being the most obvious, have attempted to enable a certain amount of democratisation by allowing the appointment process of roles such as judges to be approved through the legislature. We do not know what it would look like for Bermuda to devolve the existing gubernatorial role and to leave the “head of state” to appoint the Chief Justice, Commissioner of Police, Commanding Officer of the Royal Bermuda Regiment, and so on and so on.

We rather know what it might look like today if it were so, Exhibit A being the case of Bobby Moulder where a Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses, appointed by the Premier, attempted to bury evidence for 50 years. That decision was overturned on appeal. Mr Moulder may have persevered, but at what cost will justice be rendered?

In any event, one would have thought these would be the kind of things a progressive government would have talked long about and given the public food for thought. Rather, here the analogy is of two pitbulls in a death grip and battle for control being dragged apart by Britain to consider the fate of the island with its present arrangement. Neither is particularly interested but, rather, more preoccupied with who wins the next election.

It is left to us, “Johnny Public”, to pontificate over how we fit into a changed arrangement with Britain and meet the challenge of redefining what our new world looks like — at least for this generation.