Nothing has been demonstrated to unite a divided community more effectively than identifying a common enemy.

And demagogues, opportunists and garden variety political hacks the world over have a long, unhappy history of exploiting the latent anxieties and fears of societies in flux to instill a type of contrived, angst-driven consensus.

By manipulating the phobias and prejudices of the day, by pinpointing a foe (usually a manufactured one) who is then painted as either the instigator or prime beneficiary of their distress and disappointments, politicians encourage people who might otherwise be at odds with one another on any number of fronts to close ranks behind them.

It’s during times of economic stress and social uncertainty, when traditional community bonds are most eroded and longstanding cultural orthodoxies most undermined, that scapegoating becomes the preferred pastime of politicians on the make.

A demoralised population can be reliably distracted from mulling too deeply about the complex causes of a social calamity — and their political leaders’ roles in creating such crises — if a convenient fall guy is found. So pariahs are produced upon whom all fears and hatreds can be projected, enemies within who are working against the people’s interests. The complex causes of the general public’s misfortunes go largely overlooked and unexamined when an all-purpose whipping boy offers a simplistic target for vitriol and spleen-venting.

Politicians might frame their supposed concerns with a designated enemy in an old-timey air of mock solemnity and piety. But nothing can disguise the essentially exploitative and mercenary nature of such contrived witch-hunts. Intent on firing up their bases, expanding their support and deflecting legitimate criticism which would otherwise fall upon them, the prospect of reaping short-term political gain from demonising individuals or groups within a community always overrides any lingering scruples about inflicting lasting damage on the social fabric.

In Bermuda our absurd hand-me-down variation on the British two-party political system is predicated on a constant state of conflict between Government and Opposition. It’s inevitable the neverending Parliamentary struggle between ostensibly implacable antagonists holding supposedly irreconcilable positions will shape and colour wider community debate on the issues of the day. And it’s also inevitable that some political figures will wade into these broader Them Against Us controversies, attempting to mobilise the widespread disillusionment and discontent now so much in evidence behind their particular party.

There can be little doubt that genuine concerns surrounding the delicate issue of Permanent Residents gaining Bermuda status and the emotionally-charged subject of compulsory land expropriations on the Island have been cheerfully abused by a number of senior Opposition Parliamentarians.

At a time when thousands of Bermudians remain either unemployed or underemployed, encouraging a sense of both historic and ongoing victimisation by carpetbagging newcomers is clearly viewed as an expedient political strategy despite the gutter tactics involved. But when politicians are unable to see beyond four- or five-year Parliamentary terms, sound long-term planning aimed at providing workable solutions to Bermuda’s economic and social ills will likely always play a secondary role to provocative and polarising vote-winning stunts.

Meanwhile the leadership of this Government has routinely demonstrated itself to be tone-deaf to the prevailing mood of a community which remains bedraggled, bewildered and exhausted after six years of economic turmoil. Emotions are raw, sensitivities particularly close to the surface as the prospects of recovery remain elusive. If the Opposition has exploited the Permanent Residents and Tucker’s Town issues, then Government provided them with ample opportunity to do so. The lack of anything resembling a coherent policy position on Bermuda’s arbitrary immigration policies and the singular lack of interest in pursuing a bi-partisan approach to the contentious subject clearly emboldened the Opposition. So did the condescending lip-service sensitivity demonstrated to those who view the acquisition and development of Tucker’s Town as an unhealed historical wound.

Politically-motivated confrontation became unavoidable when the possibility of constructive, consensus-driven action on both issues was removed from the table by Government. And the whole process, to employ Jorge Luis Borges’ famous example, has proved to be about as edifying as watching two bald men fight over a comb.

While the Opposition clearly prevailed in the competition for hearts, minds and votes on these matters, Bermuda and Bermudians — not Government — were the real losers. For the Island sorely needs leadership more focused on pursuing our common goals and nurturing our common aspirations than in manufacturing common enemies.