There was a great deal to observe from the recent Republican debate involving five GOP presidential candidates vying for the White House, as they locked horns in a final bid to convince voters before what is referred to as Super Tuesday. A clearer picture should emerge as who will be the one to go up against the Democrats in the upcoming election.

That debate, which was moderated by the celebrated CNN veteran Wolf Blitzer, was expected to produce more than a few fireworks. With that in mind, Blitzer outlined the debate rules, noting that all candidates had agreed to comply with them so that they might maintain a sense of order throughout the proceedings.

Those who have watched previous debates are aware that, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat debate, politicians tend to develop a hearing problem when it comes to obeying the signal to cease talking in order to provide a smooth, orderly discussion for candidates and, indeed, the listening audience.

However, within minutes as the GOP debate got under way, candidates were observed disregarding those rules despite repeated warnings from a bell tone that their allotted time had expired. To some, this may seem unimportant because candidates scrambled to capture potential support from undecided voters. Others could take the view that politicians too often would rather talk than listen, especially if what they hear seems irrelevant to their objectives. Not a good policy.

Politicians in any democratic jurisdiction should be careful in how they operate according to basic rules designed to promote respect for order. If a politician is prepared openly to disobey a simple debate rule, one could conclude that such behaviour could spill over into other administrative responsibilities once in office. The moderator, in trying to be as fair as possible to all the candidates, did his best to avoid making the rules an issue, but he had to remind them frequently of what they had agreed to.

At one stage, things appeared to be slipping out of control when three candidates crossed the line in heated verbal attacks on each other. The three speaking simultaneously created a dilemma for Blitzer, who in a calm but stern voice was heard repeatedly saying, “Gentlemen, gentlemen, we must have order to stay on track with our questioning.”

Just imagine: these men endeavouring to hold the highest office in America were having trouble complying with rules needed for a healthy discussion on critical issues. Running for president of the United States should never have the appearance of a TV reality show.

Here in Bermuda, with our small population, we either have a political hearing problem, which at times can be a two-way street, or our method of communication on highly sensitive subjects needs upgrading to have a better connect between political objectives and how the people perceive them.

When people express strong reservations about any government project, it is not to say the project is wrong, but it is a signal that something is not quite right in how information is provided to the public.

In other words, it should be clear with hard evidence that failure to take a certain course of action would be detrimental to progress in Bermuda. If the people have doubts about that outcome, then authorities need to review their communication system. In any event, the views of the people must be taken seriously.

If three people are stranded on a desert with only one bottle of water, it would be foolish to argue over how to share the precious life-saving substance. Breaking the bottle would end any dispute, but it would also end their prospects for survival. In the political arena, when there is strong disagreement between the authorities and the public, anger and rage left smouldering could lead to that “broken-bottle syndrome”. Bermuda could do without that.

Whether it is immigration or school closures, there should never be an impression that bulldozer tactics are being applied, irrespective of how the people feel.

This is not a time for a political hearing problem. It is also not the time to suggest radical self-destructing steps to solve our problems. The Government needs to step back a little, allow tempers to cool and perhaps begin working closer with the people. A better connection will occur, thus opening doors for improved understanding of various issues facing the island and its people.

When the people speak, whether they are right or wrong, their concerns must be given the utmost consideration by those in authority. This is a testing time for Bermuda, but with cool positive thinking by those on either side of an issue, the potential is high for solutions to delicate problems.