Dear Sir,

In 1968, Bermuda emerged with a new constitutional order, which was perhaps groundbreaking given the social political order up to that point. The constitution, as a starting point, may have been useful, but after 359 years of history and a society of “unequals”, what was needed was a national plan that redefined where the country and its people were heading. Instead, we had a constitution that, for national development, left us with the formula of “grow your own potatoes”.

What we needed was a national plan that was both visual and measurable. One of the most significant areas of nation-building would have been education. Basically, Bermuda’s education up to 1968 wasn’t bad, but it was highly dependent on family and their deposable incomes.

With Bermuda’s position in the global arena set to grow, the horizon was already set and it should have been clear that Bermuda needed a highly educated public and for education to be given a greater percentage of the national budget. A greater commitment to advance political participation and, hence, transparency and accountability would have been another feature of a national plan. Instead, we grew a political class system that is now so ingrained that the populace are unaware that we are voluntarily ruled by a political class.

The vision of the economy also needed to be one of inclusion and was entirely attainable if the will existed. We got a constitution but then a leadership based on the old rule and order ensured the chaos that followed. I know someone will say the Progressive Labour Party had a national plan, but really its plan was coupled with independence.

I prefer to separate the status of a people, their rights and freedoms from the idea of their status of sovereignty. Can we have both? Yes but not at the expense the other. No point in having sovereignty when the people have no rights or when their leaders can systemically hide their corruption and, should I say, have a near-enshrined right to orchestrate a dictatorship. We don’t have to look too far for this evidence. Further, I argue what can be wrong about fighting to attain the principles of freedom and having the public fully alive and informed, aided with systems that encourage participation?

I would be more inclined to support steps towards sovereignty if it were preceded by a march towards greater democratisation and human freedoms.

So we now know that for 50-plus years we have been led by a modality without a vision for the country as a collective. Parliament as a collective needs to be proverbially flogged; particularly when the very foundation which is education can be so easily compromised.And again when economic development means the development of only a few can be operable amid a world that calls for a united Bermuda. Who is at the watch? I don’t think they are sleeping; it is just a carry-over from 1968. We got a constitution, but you have to “plant your own potatoes”.

KHALID WASI