Although we live under a parliamentary government, the primary functions or mechanisms of governance are in many ways similar in all government systems. During this pandemic the role of the Minister of Finance, called in some jurisdictions the Treasury or, as in Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has taken sharper focus. Steve Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury in the US, has come under focus because it is his role to keep the availability of money circulating. They are all under similar roles and appointed as part of a government’s Cabinet by the leader. It is only in Britain where the term First Lord of the Exchequer is given to the Prime Minister and Second Lord of the Exchequer to the Minister of Finance to show the Prime Minister’s superior responsibility to the economy. Not so with the Bermuda constitutional order of 1968, which is very clear on where that responsibility for the management of the Consolidated Fund lay. There is no ambivalence over the Premier and the Minister of Finance’s role on who bears the responsibility to manage the state of our Consolidated Fund. Or in other words, who is responsible for what’s in the kitty and gets to determine how to spend it — or even what’s not in the kitty and how it is to be replenished. It is the finance minister’s role to create a yearly budget and then put in all the regulatory guidance to achieve what is forecasted. Perhaps it is for that reason the statement by a former finance minister, “I’m just a cog in the wheel”, was a true self-indictment and a constitutional mischaracterisation of the role of Minister of Finance. No finance minister can hide under that cloak for ever more. As for style of governance, it is an imperative to find the wisdom that exists in systems, even if antiquated because usually there is. In our case it speaks loudly, both from historical and practical perspectives when we compare how ministers have functioned over several decades.Practical? Because if the finance ministers were either subordinate or needing the consensus as a shared responsibility of Cabinet, the country may then be subject to the lowest common denominator. Any country will be doomed to perdition if they had one or two “less than agile” — some prefer to say “not so swift” — individuals. OK, so Bermuda doesn’t have that problem but there are always obstinate or intractable persons everywhere and heaven help us if there are more than two. We need to look no farther than Mitch McConnell as an example. his intellect is as sharp as a razor, but to describe him as obstinate would be a euphemism. Then also, in theory, if made subordinate to the Premier or leader, decisions in such cases may tend to be more political than rational. Notwithstanding, if a decision is made by a Minister of Finance and a premier having command of the majority feels such decision as inappropriate, he can remove the minister, squash the matter through Parliament and allow history to form the verdict on his decision. The emphasis here being the Minister of Finance should be motivated by their conscience and not by the will or to appease the imprudent postures of any crowd or persons in such case — not even the leader. Simply put, they must not be a just cog in the wheel. I have had the fortune of knowing several ministers of finance and recall some who were proud to share how they demanded absolute compliance from all ministers. Historically, we have had the benefit of observing at least nine Ministers of Finance, each clearly as memorable, even as memorable as the premiers they served. We probably cannot remember other ministries and roles as vividly. We may also recall what was considered the strengths or weakness of each and perhaps that’s because their decisions and indecision affected the country so deeply, particularly for those trying to progress. For sure, now, as will be in the future, the premiers and the Ministers of Finance will be judged not as they wish to be remembered, but rather how a critical future generation chooses to consider the merits or demerits of their actions. To quote Ali Bin Talib, a leader from 1,400 years ago who said to his governors after admonishing them to treat their citizens fairly: “Remember, the people will not judge how we rule by our standards, they will judge you/us by how they were previously treated.”You see, it’s just the way of the world: the people will have no hesitation saying we had more rice last year under a previous ruler. Look at Donald Trump trying to boast of his presidency over that of Barack Obama’s, the measurements he and his support base use are not seen by the world as they view them. One can attempt to control the narrative by obfuscating the facts, but in the proverbial language “the Emperor has no clothes but doesn’t know it”. The world of reason and of rational people is not as blind as those individuals with narcissistic and bigoted attitudes; the broader global perspective sees it as it is, and it is their perspectives where legacy is truly made. In times such as this Covid-19 pandemic, it is worth remembering the fate of heroic generals and leaders during the times of war. Or even imagine a battle horse hearing the voice of his master over the clanging clash of steel swords. Leaders have to find the way forward amid the cries and tears of the mothers who have lost their sons, or the sights of torn-off limbs, blood and the raw evidence of crippling fatigue and still not yield to a retreat, or fight out hatred or revenge, but rather stay the course for victory for principle and honour. The politician — well, the true one — must find truth and reason as the backbone of their purpose and the steel from which their sword is made. The true politician in a time of strife must turn a deaf ear and blind eye to partisanship and tribalism for the good of the whole. The real leader must not yield to the known bigotry of comrades. This Covid-19 pandemic requires more than just a club member; it requires energetic leaders looking for answers. Even if under a rock, they will get their hands dirty to find it. We don’t need those who say don’t look over there because it’s this or that kind of people, or she/he called me a name 30 years ago. We need those who are able to pick up their cross, whatever it is, and march towards a better day if there ever is to be one.