The leadership of the Progressive Labour Party must be having migraines over the way that its membership enrolment controversy has spilt into the public arena.

That is understandable for a party that prides itself on discipline and keeping problems “in the family”.

That, however, does not mean it is wrong for the public to know what is happening in their ruling party or to see to how it manages its internal affairs — how its runs itself speaks volumes for how it runs the country.

It is also because, despite its leaders — including the Premier, David Burt — protesting that these are internal matters, the decision as to who wins the leadership election affects every person in Bermuda since that person will also lead the whole island.

It does not matter that this position will be chosen by a relatively small and unrepresentative group of people. They are, like it or not, acting on behalf of everyone.

To that end, it is critical that, regardless of whether Jason Hayward or Curtis Dickinson is elected as leader and therefore Premier, the process is not only fair but is seen to be fair.

It may well be that a judge will now decide if how PLP members and delegates are chosen is in accordance with the party’s constitution.

But, from the outside looking in, the optics are bad.

The PLP constitution seems to make it clear that any Bermudian, regardless of previous political views, can join the party provided they sign up and pay their dues by the end of August. There is no litmus test beyond that.

Equally, the rules do not require delegates to the party conference to have had tenure in the party for any length of time.

As such, it is a remarkably clean and simple process that has served the party well for more than 60 years as its system of electing its leaders.

Only this year has the need for change apparently come.

It is no secret that Mr Dickinson, the former finance minister, has run an energetic campaign and has understood that the key to winning the leadership comes down to signing up PLP members and therefore securing enough delegates to win a majority at the party conference.

It is also true that Mr Dickinson appeals to a more centrist set of supporters than past PLP leadership contenders or Mr Hayward, the economy and labour minister. If Mr Dickinson is attracting people who previously would have voted for either the One Bermuda Alliance or another party, then observers might think that this is something that a PLP that wanted to widen its support base would welcome.

It was the late Frederick Wade and Dame Jennifer Smith, the PLP’s first premier, who recognised that the party would win government only if it broadened its appeal, resulting in a landslide victory in 1998.

Instead, it appears that the PLP, under Mr Burt’s leadership, is doing the opposite; purposefully narrowing the membership of the party.

This raises the question of why Mr Burt and the party executive would wish to achieve this. Mr Burt has publicly declared his neutrality in this race, but it is hard to dismiss the idea that this is an attempt to tip the scales in favour of Mr Hayward.

There is an irony in this case that the PLP is broadly imitating the OBA.

In the OBA’s case, Robert King ran an insurgent campaign against the establishment candidate, Ben Smith, and won a majority from the party membership. Like Mr Dickinson, Mr King recognised that the key to winning was to sign up members.

Of course, the OBA MPs later forced Mr King out of his position and he has since left the party. Few would argue that the OBA is stronger as a result of that episode.

Now the PLP finds itself in the same position, at least in terms of public perception. Many will believe that the PLP establishment, fearing that its favoured candidate was in danger of losing, changed the rules that have been broadly in place since the 1960s, to ensure victory.

Mr Burt has maintained that this is simply good housekeeping. The party has experienced an influx of new members, some of whom have been associated with opposition parties in the past, and needs to ensure they genuinely wish to be members of the party.

But there are many who will be sceptical of this and the costs may not be worth it.

Those with long memories will hearken back to previous PLP splits in the 1960s and 1980s when centrist politicians were driven out of the party. Those divisions unquestionably prolonged its time in opposition.

A party that closes ranks and imposes ideological purity tests on its members runs the risk of damaging its hard-won credibility for representing all of the people of Bermuda.

Mr Burt is meeting with his fellow leaders from the Caribbean British Overseas Territories at present. This should have been a time to celebrate his legacy as a long-lasting member of that group. Instead, this episode is tarnishing it.