May 22, 2012Dear Sir,Heritage Month, along with the recent media announcements concerning persons being selected as political candidates in various constituencies, make this an appropriate time to comment on our political heritage. Most persons are aware that, prior to the mid-1960s, Bermuda was under the effective political control of the oligarchic families that were the descendants of the 17th Century settlers in Bermuda. These families were so confident in their power that they threatened to declare independence from Britain when the British Government responded to the 1947 Bermuda Workers Association petition seeking an increased franchise and improved workers' rights by requesting the local parliament to take action on the matter. In the event, no local action was taken on the request from the British Government other than providing free primary education in 1949.The House of Assembly established a committee in 1953, the year of the Queen's coronation, seeking to improve the social and political conditions locally but it was not until 1959 that any real action was taken. That action came about in spite of the ineffective actions of our parliament. It was the Theatre Boycott, initiated by intellectuals but led, on the street level, by the so-called “common men” exemplified by Kingsley Tweed and Lesley Lynch, which galvanised opposition to the oligarchs. When this was followed by the dockworkers strike, led again by a “common man” Joseph Mills, the oligarchs were in retreat and they desegregated the restaurants and hotels and soon after expanded the franchise to initially include all adults over the age of 25 for the 1963 election and decreased it to all persons over the age of 21 for the 1968 election.Our political heritage must take account of the creation of the Progressive Labour Party, designed to support the workers, in 1963 and, in reaction, the creation of the United Bermuda Party in 1964. The UBP was nominally created to ensure that the three ethnic groups worked together for the betterment of Bermuda but it was generally viewed as an effort by the oligarchs to retain power as long as possible. This viewpoint was supported by the development of the Black Caucus within the UBP during the early 1970s, about 1974. This group was obviously dissatisfied with the actions of the UBP to serve the needs of the black population. The Black Caucus did not last long but its existence highlighted our heritage of one party being viewed as serving the needs of whites while the other party is viewed as serving the needs of blacks. Those viewpoints continue to exist today despite the racial changes in the parliamentary membership of the PLP and the general absence of the oligarchic families within the UBP and the OBA. In that sense, heritage is very important to our current political situation. Of even more importance, however, is the motivation that drives our current parliamentary aspirants. It was relatively obvious in the 1960s, it is not obvious now. I would enjoy an explication from each of the current parties concerning their fundamental objectives, leaving out the political spin that they all spout.JT CHRISTOPHERWarwick