Somewhere around the mid-1980s, I wrote an article along with nine other selected persons in The Bermudian magazine, which asked the question “Which way, Bermuda?”

It was supposed to be reviewed after 25 years, presumably to evaluate progress, or even the efficacy of the ten opinion pieces. One sentence comes to mind, which was “we need a whole anthropological step forward”.

I was speaking then directly to what was seen as the beginnings of a social degeneration and a societal breakdown, which needed more than money to fix because there is no substitute for values and character.

The situation triggered an intellectual question about the role of leadership and what would be its mode and mandate. Is there a “one size fits all”? Is there such a thing as a comprehensive leadership, or is leadership meant to be benign, while society remedies and fixes itself?

From a sociological perspective, there are two forms of government. Either government is seen as a massive municipality with rules to govern the streets, control taxes and provide laws that keep everyone safe from each other and the state.

Where in such a case, the state hopes that the people have their freedom to be and do as they desire to attain happiness in a harmonious fashion. Where the progress of society is left to natural forces under a laissez-faire capitalist design.

While another format is based on leadership, examining the strengths, weaknesses and options for society, then implementing all the necessary tools to evolve society even on a personal level to attain the best of its possibilities within a free enterprise.

Two concepts both with the same stated goal of facilitating the best for society, but diametrically opposite in character. One system leaves it up to society to do as it wills to rise or fall at its own pleasure. The other takes a pastoral, parent-teacher role to instruct society to achieve its ultimate.

That divide is a bit deeper than the usual leftist or right-wing ethical persuasions because the mandates are not as simple as who spends the tax dollar, but extends to whether there is a role to foster the type of attitudes that a citizen should or should not have, and is instructive in that regard.

Perhaps the real truth is there is no absolute answer or proper mode of governance, and the real issue is, instead, the ability to dance to whatever need truly exists.

When you have persons who absolutely need to be held by the hand, living side-by-side with others who will freely thrive and still others who absolutely flourish at the expense of others, does government in such cases become as a guru that can handle and guide the multiple needs?

Or does government remain benign, to preserve the purity in the principle of a free society, even if it has clearly become non-progressive and faltering?

Progress has always been important and today, in this global environment, it is an imperative. When we look at our youth, we see our future. When we look at our workforce, our educators and our society, our future is the end product of what we see as active today.

We live in a real-time life drama of cause and effect. We need to print all our needs and paste them on the proverbial church door like Martin Luther, the 16th-century reformer, and be able to solve them one by one.

We will stand together united in an approach and make progress, or we will perish at the hands of our own ills. Progress is an imperative, but compassion and chivalry, both free talents, are concomitant human values that make it all possible.