I read the October 14 article titled “Mixed or additional-member electoral system” written by Phil Perinchief, an esteemed constitutional lawyer with a history of activism. Thankfully, his was an attempt to put some substance and structure to what has lately become a nascent political movement framed as “Independents”, and popularised by Sir John Swan and others’ recent successes that showed their competitiveness in two by-elections.

These successes came despite not having an endgame or a clear ideology that can be articulated. The success is largely attributed to a desire for change in light of dissatisfaction with today’s politics.

Those with an understanding of sociology know that change happens slowly, if at all. With that understood, it is better to approach the subject of change with simple measures that can be easily adopted within any jurisdiction.

When thinking of participatory democracy, Switzerland is perhaps the best example. However, it is too radical a departure from where we are.

The progressive movement in the United States is the best example of change brought about against the background of party control. While not perfect, the progressive movement went a long way towards bringing power back to the hands of the electorate.

Some of the reforms made by the progressive movement could be very easily adopted in Bermuda. Things such as a two-phase electoral system that has island-wide primaries as the first phase for candidate selection would be a welcome and useful change.

A fixed election every four or five years would give any respective government a mandated period rather than held by the prospect of coming to an untimely end by a parliamentary vote. It also removes the need for a party whip.

Another important item to develop is a “Voters Bill of Rights”. Such would bring clarity and distinction to the powers within the electorate. At the moment, we hear the chant “One man one vote of equal value”, but no one can attribute any value aside from a right to vote every four years or so.

What about the right of recall? Or the right to a binding referendum? Or the right to freely express one’s political views without victimisation? The right to stand? The right to nominate?

Having a right is different from exercising a privilege or a freedom at your peril.

None of these changes can happen without proper dialogue, and should not happen by attrition. We have the habit of stumbling from one chapter to the next when we should be making deliberate steps.

There is something nostalgic and even romantic about achieving rights. Gaining rights is like gaining currency that can be put in one’s pocket. It is also achievable because at the moment society lives without these rights that have proved to be essential and foundational to any modern democracy.

Many years ago, along with the likes of the senator Arnott Jackson, we were involved in the exercise of explaining optional forms of government including the idea of independents. Somewhere around the year 2000, a group emerged called the Bermuda Leadership Forum — the unsuccessful result of trying to find an alternative political organisation.

It gained some notoriety when it produced a code of conduct that was embraced by Parliament. One of the problems of the group, as I recall, was that it was dubbed Stuart Hayward’s group. Another problem was that he did not seem to mind that characterisation. But it limited the group’s dynamism.

I fear the same for the newly emerging independents that some would like to dub “Sir John Swan’s Independents” despite his pleas to the contrary. This further highlights the need for ideological intervention. The goals and aims of the independent movement must be seen as higher than any individual. I think this is where Phil Perinchief was challenging the motivations of those associated with the movement.

There are so many reforms that would make life better between the electorate and the Parliament, including a revision to our Human Rights Act, which at present exempts political parties and unions. However, there needs to be a proper forum to deliberate on these matters.

This newspaper and its audience with a limited attention span are not the proper medium. The only thing we can do here is emphasise the need for such discussion and for dialogue to happen.