I was always curious and objectionable about the use of the terms “My Lord” and “Your Worship” in the Supreme Court. Until it dawned on me that a possible reason for the use of such terms was to reverence the principle of law. It is not a title of the individual that is at play in the court, but rather the role to attain and establish truth and justice.

Naturally, we are talking about humans and their limitations with ideals to represent as if it were God on Earth, which is not always achieved as pristine as desired, but which is an open manifestation in pure historical reflections on the benches of the courts. Yet, any less of an ideal would leave society at the raw impulses of a judge.

The same can be said of the ideal of a progressive civil society. History has shown many periods when there was strong advocacy for progress and the ideals of a civil society with a constitutionality that promoted equality for all its citizens.

The world has seen many high periods of enlightenment. If we consider the late-18th century as a more contemporaneous enlightenment period, we will see that many countries experimented with their constitutions with varying degrees of progress. America was obsessed with the idea of creating an ideal constitution for two decades after the revolution of 1776. Pennsylvania, for example, developed a unicameral government but abandoned it in 1787 for a bicameral one — the point being, they were looking for the best format that worked, and were willing to change positions to achieve a more effective result.

All the great minds were on deck contributing to the creation of what was to be a lasting document that succeeding generations would need to perfect. This was a national project, not a party project. Flexibility was inherent because it was understood that no one individual or even generation of individuals could live long enough to see a society perfected. Like the old castles of Europe, each generation only saw and had a hand in a piece of the evolving structure that at times took more than a century to build.

There is something axiomatically and philosophically wrong with the political construct in Bermuda where it relates to civil and constitutional progress. Progress all over the world came as a result of some form of discrimination, abuse of power and tyranny. The greatest agency for change has been oppression of some sort. Bermuda can say for sure that it, too, saw a period of protest back in the mid-20th century. What it cannot say is that it went through 20 years or even years of rational deliberation to determine what is best as a form of governance for the country and its people. That effort should have been a continuous process that subsequent generations could analyse, critique and amend until they got the proper balance and formula that works.

Creating a junta, however legitimised, or a means to attain power cannot be a substitute for a well-thought-out formula for a civil contract for a society. In Bermuda, it was a tug-of-war from the inception, with the United Bermuda Party trying its best to hold on to power by any means and the Progressive Labour Party trying to wrestle away that power by any means.

It could be said with a fair amount of accuracy that the banks and top legal firms ran the UBP government. The sad reality is that, while it may not be the banks and legal firms today, it is still apparently external sources running the PLP government. The leaders of both political parties, while acting as though they are real leaders, have been simple puppets on a string. Oh, be sure the banks never showed up to a caucus meeting. Why should they when they can pull in the leader and read the script that the rest will follow?

The general electorate has been underserved and robbed of its civic and political role. The leaders have no intent to create an inclusive and participatory democracy that enjoys the active support of the entire electorate. It is and has always been political parties in an isolated caucus serving special interests and not the people.

The PLP will continue to rely on its 120 delegates as its excuse for participation, while the One Bermuda Alliance remains clueless in hoping for the same opportunity to rule.

The progressive movement to create an ever-evolving democratic society that changes and perfects itself through experimenting with modalities until it finds what works is dead in the water. Self-interest reigns proudly, supported by political and public ignorance.

Look at what happened after the French Revolution, after the cries for liberty, the storming of the Bastille, the numerous killings at the guillotine in the name of revolution for the people. They produced Napoleon Bonaparte when one would have thought the Enlightenment might have brought more of a civil society.

If that is funny, look at what happened after Bermuda fought for civil rights, the right to vote and create a new open world, the riots for Buck Burrows and Larry Tacklyn, and the island-wide shutdown of 1981. We have produced something that looks more like an autocracy that has chased our youth off the island and dragged the economy to its knees.

Was this what the prayers, the protests and songs of freedom and marches were for?

It was said a long time ago long before this administration was ever considered possible that Bermuda would become the home of the wealthy. John Bassett Jr said it was his mother that told him that prophecy. The recent near 50 per cent rise in electricity along with this present leadership is going a long way to fulfilling that prophecy. How can the island support it? With a sluggish economy, the leader is supporting the largest and most popular hotel to be closed until 2025 and beyond, despite popular protests and his own planning department’s disapproval? How much more can the country take? Is this the enlightenment we sought?

All of this leads to one conclusion: we need a new and inclusive political system. The other is just as important a reality, which is there is no party or organisation that knows enough or is willing to make the necessary changes as a priority. We must embrace the reality that as far as the notion of developing a cohesive, participatory civil society in Bermuda is concerned, the country is leaderless.

I don’t suggest we do like the French and storm the capital, but somewhere there has to be a group willing to take on the intellectual challenge to form an organisation with the mandate to bring the public around to the idea of continuous change until we get it right for everyone.

The Stoic position here is that even if in my lifetime nothing said is heeded, it is still worth saying.