Compromise, collaboration and consensus are not four-letter words, as you well know, Mr Editor, but it sure seems like it when it comes to modern-day politics, if you get my drift.

This can be one of the drawbacks to the Westminster system and how the winning party gets to take all, no matter how close the popular vote. The party in power claims that it was elected to govern — and so it should. Lead, that is. But that doesn’t necessarily mean dictate, and especially when the other half of the electorate didn’t vote for you and sent representatives of the other party to the Legislature. To steamroller ahead and on significant matters without reference to those members of the Opposition, and without reference to those people who put them there, is to do so at electoral peril, regardless of what polls may say.

This is because it also puts in peril our future as a functional community. I exaggerate not. Take Exhibit A: immigration reform. Or Exhibit B: marriage equality. Or Exhibit C: public education. The list is not exhaustive; indeed, some might say, it’s endless. Mine is simply illustrative.

Bury your head in the sand if you like, but it doesn’t take long to realise how divided we are, chiefly on racial lines, and then politically as well.

In 20 square miles, we are all neighbours, brothers and sisters with a common cause: Bermuda. Or rather should be, and the overriding goal of our representatives should be to manage their way through these contentious issues on our behalf with a view to maintaining community.

Now I won’t pretend to have all the answers. I don’t. But I know from my experience on and off that Hill that people want the opportunity to be heard, to have their opinions valued and respected, and, where possible, taken into account.

A parliamentary committee system can serve just this purpose. It becomes a means whereby the issues of the day can be aired. Ministers and civil servants can also share their challenges and options available to them. Members of the public get to listen in and make representations if they wish. For their part, our parliamentary representatives not only get to listen, but also get to question and make recommendations. It makes for a whole different approach to governance in which the emphasis by design is on consultation and not confrontation.

It also makes possible, but not definite, consensus.

The sad thing here is that we have a government that actually campaigned on a promise to strengthen our parliamentary committee system and to give all MPs the opportunity to weigh in on major policy decisions. Three years on, that has not materialised. The Opposition presses for a committee network instead.

Some consistency wouldn’t hurt, either. No referendum on this, but yes on that: one promised (casino), the other not. One decision taken because it is the right thing to do, and forced on us by law (status), we are told, but not followed on the other (same-sex marriage); and, please, do us one favour in these twists and turns, and spare us the vertigo-inducing spin.

Of course, the usual defence/explanation/justification is that someone else is to blame and, typically, the one says that it is the fault of the other. But we need to get past this sort of petty, political party partisanship for the sake of community and to change course before the divide deepens and widens. The Chinese have a saying that is particularly apt: qi hu nan xia. Roughly translated: when you are riding a tiger, the hard part is getting off. Sure seems like the problem to me, Mr Editor.

But it isn’t just the system by which we are governed. Human nature is a big factor, too.

It was a former United States senator Alan Simpson, a long-serving member on the DC Hill, a man of considerable legislative experience, who is reported to have told representatives there this: if you cannot learn to compromise on issues without compromising yourself, you should not be in Congress, be in business or get married.

Wise words, you might think.

It is not a question of asking people to compromise their principles, either. Rather, it’s about asking our representatives to be far more collaborative in their approach and to seek first common ground where there are competing and conflicting interests.

But to get there, at the very least there has to be the opportunity for collaboration, built into our system of governance as standard operating procedure, and as the starting point for discussion and dialogue on and off our Hill. This is key if we are truly to put community first and to avoid what we can plainly see emerging here and elsewhere — and that is where compromise, collaboration and consensus come to be viewed as betrayal. These three “c-words” are anything but.

Indeed, they may also be the missing link to our survival and success as a functional community.