In an article I wrote titled “Injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere”, published February 20, I cautioned about government agencies that are funded by taxpayer dollars, and their abusive use against private citizens.

The recent ruling of Chief Justice Ian Kawaley in the case of physician Mahesh Reddy against the Bermuda Police Service is a clear vindication of that article, which upheld the need for government transparency, past and present, and to investigate wrong — but not at the expense of fairness or by abusing the function of public institutions such as the police service, Office of the Ombudsman and other statutory bodies, from which governments need to resist the temptation to use contemptuously because it can become an overreach to achieve a political outcome.

This latest Supreme Court decision, coming on the back of the court’s reversal of the ruling to do with the Reverend Nicholas Tweed and the Ministry of Home Affairs, was an indication that there was a piercing of the veil between political reach and civil authority. Like the philosophical issue of separation of church and state, there is meant to be a clear line that separates the civil bodies’ operations appointed to perform the duties of government from the political or legislative authorities that derive and make their policy.

We are all in a test tube in the laboratory of governance, and these court rulings have helped to disclose the lines of demarcation between statutory bodies and political interference. No doubt, each successive government has had its share in cases of interference. The One Bermuda Alliance, as the new kid on the block, allowed its role as government to be tarnished by the excessive overreach enjoyed by a few of its ministers.

It is symptomatic of our politics straddled between the opposite demands within society, which aside from the more obvious aspects, such as who rules, is layered by agendas that lay beneath the surface and serve as the real political motivations. The Berkeley Institute and Bermuda Housing Corporation issues were items that hit the Progressive Labour Party straight out of the proverbial starting blocks. The underlying impetus or moral justification was at best as a result of a misguided approach at redistribution of wealth and opportunity. It would be useless to rehash all the subsequent attempts at the same goal. Suffice to say, similarly, aside from the political aim of social diversity, it became clear that underneath the OBA’s victory was also an agenda to not just reverse the economic saga but preserve innate conservative desires, thus reversing the underlying aspired economic aims of the PLP.

The pace at which the waterfront development was attacked and dismantled, beginning in the first months of governance, the not so properly thought-out pathway to citizenship initiative, even if one argues its merits, suggest — like the PLP in its first term — that the OBA had come in with some members already committed to an agenda, frothing at the mouth and salivating at the opportunity.

The resulting commotion and party unrest reveal that these positions were not unanimous party positions, but rather the unchecked nonconsensual driven positions of a few ministers. In similar fashion, I tried in vain in February 2015 — at the very beginning of ACBDA — before any hard plans were laid down, with letters and clear proposals to cause a greater sharing of the America’s Cup event, but was brushed aside by the tunnel vision of a “club mentality” which could not envision a more inclusive approach.

Apparently this was not just my experience, but also that of former MP John Barritt, who stated in a Bernews.com interview that the event could have been planned much better and that they would rather blame people’s non-participation than to have sorted out a more inclusive strategy from the very beginning. Unfortunately, this is now part of an indelible history.

If failures are the benchmark for choices, then what we will have to compare is a PLP failure to reverse the wealth gap and empower the beleaguered or disadvantaged sector of the economy, with the OBA’s attempt to reverse the ideals of the PLP and maintain the status quo. One format ended in a failing economy and turmoil, the other in social turmoil and a failed non-functional government. Neither performances appropriate for a continuous harmonious pattern, which is so essential to economic growth. These are the sociological hard facts of our political history, without the gloss of political spin.

The clear intervention, when looking at the raw evidence of political history, would be a move towards the motto of “eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive”. In the Bermuda context, it will mean the electorate will have to examine each party’s tract and see how their failed history can be amended to fit into the idea of a Bermuda going forward.

Naturally the huge question is: can they do differently? And what would they do this time to make their platforms viable.

The Bermuda public have grown to a point of near absolute intolerance. There is reason to conclude we will not have any repeats. The residual questions are: what is the agenda? And what direction and progress can we expect?

Or the “biggie”. Of which moral impetus would the electorate prefer?

This is a case of “The emperor has no clothes on”. History is a clear exhibit: no need to demonstrate anything other than what you intend to do going forward and show evidence that there is sincerity and a genuine plan.

• Comments are closed on political content from July 4 to 19 to stem the flow of purposefully inflammatory and litigious comments during the General Election cycle. Users who introduce extreme partisan comments into other news content will be banned.