---

The 2007 election campaign was just hours old when its central theme emerged: Suspicion.

It wasn't education or crime or housing or the economy, or any of the other things that form the basis of good government.

It isn't even about trust - about how much the hesitant voter should believe in a party and its ability to make Bermuda a better place.

It's about distrust - about how little the hesitant voter should be suspicious about the other guy. Not about the things they want to do as a Government, but the secret motives that allegedly lurk in the shadows.

The Premier, in his speech to PLP delegates the day after the election was announced, was as direct as can be.

The UBP, he said, are "the most vicious and vile opponents in the history of our struggle." They are "scared" and "morally bankrupt", and the "architects of deception and pain." Other critics are "vigilantes", "snide", "nasty" and "criminal abettors" and "demented deviants."

The Opposition Leader launched the UBP's election campaign by declaring that Dr. Brown led "a Government whose behaviour has threatened the island's reputation for integrity, and challenged our democracy.

"...In this election, Bermuda can decide to proceed as one people, with respect for one another and living by the highest standards of democracy, or we can go down a path of division, self-interest and intolerance."

The UBP's platform complained of "multiple scandals, unprecedented mismanagement, undelivered promises, secrecy and supreme arrogance."

There are significant differences between the two party platforms.

Different, but the same

But these differences are overshadowed by the many things that are substantially the same.

The two parties have borrowed or stolen each other's ideas and priorities, so they end up sounding substantially alike, from tuition-free colleges, to building almost identical numbers of affordable houses, to economic empowerment zones in what used to be known as the 'back of town'.

With little in the way of substantial, concrete issues to settle the debate, the voter is left once again to grapple with the issue of suspicion.

Who do you trust most? Who do you fear most?

These things are far harder for the electorate to judge than things like affordable housing, the state of the economy, or the condition of the public education system.

Who doesn't care about blacks? Who doesn't care about whites? Who doesn't care about honesty and integrity and doing the right thing? How do you know? How can you possibly tell for sure?

This is the murky, paranoid territory in which Bermuda's elections have almost always been fought.

It reinforces the negative stereotypes we have of each other, and make it harder than ever to build a solid, healthy and unified community.

There have been a few brief bouts of a positive enthusiasm in Bermuda elections.

During the 1968 election, many voters saw an uplifting break from an undemocratic past.

Many voters saw hope for a prosperous, unified, black and white Bermuda in Sir John Swan's UBP Government, at its peak in the 1980s.

And many voters really believed the PLP's 1998 election victory was the dawn of a new and better Bermuda.

Yet they were always let down. They were always pushed back into the hopeless politics of fear and suspicion that today seems little better than it ever did before.

Is Bermuda destined to continue down this road forever?

How do we get out of this mire of suspicion?

There are two obvious approaches.

One, which is being promoted in this election by the UBP, is to significantly open up the process of Government, protect whistleblowers, enforce a code of conduct for MPs, and tone down the vitriol of election campaigns with a signed pledge of good behaviour by all its candidates.

This includes vows "to respect the rights of other parties to campaign and disseminate their ideas and principles", and "to campaign in a way that helps voters make an informed choice."

It tries to tackle suspicion by establishing standards of conduct that (if adhered to) would put politicians above suspicion. And it makes it easier to expose the kind of political wrongdoing that people are afraid might be happening behind closed doors.

Dr. Brown, on the other hand, operates from the premise that the UBP is morally bankrupt and has no legitimate right to exist. The object of fear and suspicion - the UBP, in his eyes - should be destroyed.

It's not necessarily an undemocratic view, as some have complained: The Premier presumably expects another, more legitimate, political party to rise to take the place of a demolished UBP.

It is a view that is held by many people besides Dr. Brown.

But it is a vision with serious flaws.

The UBP is not likely to be destroyed so easily. Even the Premier's vow to increase his own party strength in the House of Assembly to 30 seats seems hopelessly ambitious right now; he might well, indeed, be elected out of office on December 18.

So it simply might not work.

Worse yet, in his quest to destroy the very object of his fear and suspicion, the Premier is forced to actively try to increase the levels of public fear and suspicion.

It ends up being a cynical approach, which compounds the problem it seeks to address.

Whatever you think of each party, and whoever you want to win the next election, you ought to strongly support the new rules on political conduct and open government that the UBP has promised.

If we had them decades ago, we wouldn't be in this suspicious quagmire we are in today. Only by adopting them now will we avoid finding ourselves in the same sorry situation tomorrow.[[In-content Ad]]

---