“2024: A resounding ‘Vote de Sanction,’ not ‘Vote d’Adhésion’”
Interview: Nita Deerpalsing
* ‘No arrogance. No discrimination. No injustice. No nepotism. No corruption… This is the dream that most decent Mauritians have’
* ‘The people proved that money does not make an election when there are larger issues in consideration’
With an unprecedented 60-0 win by the Alliance du Changement, Mauritius has once again witnessed a landslide reminiscent of 1982 and 1995. However, history has shown that such sweeping victories have often let down the electorate as initial hopes gave way to political disenchantment. This year, the political shift comes against a backdrop of growing dissatisfaction with the MSM-led government. In this interview, Nita Deerpalsing examines the factors behind this striking electoral outcome,the electorate’s rejection of “poisoned freebies,” and her hopes for a more inclusive, accountable political future in Mauritius.
Mauritius Times: Mauritius has once again returned to a 60-0 absolute parliamentary majority, reminiscent of past landslides in 1982 and 1995 — instances that ultimately left the electorate disillusioned. What are your thoughts in the wake of the dramatic ousting of the MSM-led government and the equally striking victory of Alliance du Changement?
Nita Deerpalsing: When you look at the previous 60-0 scores in 1982 and 1995, we see a pattern. There was a clear ‘ras le bol’ that the electorate expressed against the then incumbent governments.A majority of the people united without any divide along rural or urban constituencies or any communal, caste divide to express the feeling of an overflowing outrage, distrust and anger against the regime.
It is therefore, once again in 2024, a clear ‘vote de sanction’ rather than a ‘vote d’adhésion’.Particularly so in 1995 and 2024 because I think in 1982, the electorate who voted in the first 60-0 still truly believed that the then ideology presented was genuine and would be upheld once in government.
So, I think what we can say about this 60-0 is that it is testimony to many drops that have continuously kept filling in a vase with a sentiment of disgust.And I daresay that the account of this disgust goes back to 2015, not 2019 only per se.
There are so many accumulated cases of intimidation, ‘dominer’ that one by one, has added to the vase of disgust as time went by.
For example, for myself only on the account of what parliament had become for the last 5 years, I had decided that the former PM had to take responsibility and be given a red card, for having forced upon the people of this country a vulgar creature as goalkeeper in parliament.In this past electoral campaign, we often heard members of the MSM say: “oh well they had closed parliament for 9 months” supposedly as an excuse for what they did to parliament.
But is that a reason to copy and do even worse?With a goalkeeper obstructing any notion of accountability, which is the primary function of a parliament, it means that effectively our parliament was for all intents and purposes, closed for business for 5 long years.And there is even worse!When you hear “Mr Merveille” confessing that some PNQs went through him, it is mind blowing to even imagine the kind of nonchalance with which a fundamental institution like the parliament was viewed in those quarters.
I think the vase was already full, but the opposition was still unable to crystallize the sentiment of disgust into a clear indication of a massive vote against the previous regime.It took the ‘missiéMoustass’ whistleblower to turn a latent sentiment of disgust into a decision to concretely vote fervently against.
What is ironic is this:in 2015 when the then regime deployed all institutions to show the bills found at Riverwalk, everyone knew that it would not be different for any other party leader who receives funds for elections.Had anyone gone to search at Angus road no doubt there would have been many millions, if not more,to be found there too.
Today in 2024, what ‘missiéMoustass’ has uncovered and shown to the people are things (undoubtedly in much much less proportions) that have been happening since eon years.Except that this time, it is this MSM regime which is being caught engaging in practices that have likely existed for years and years.
Let me hasten to say that I do believe that there is a huge difference in degree and vulgarity in what we have seen in the ‘missiéMoustass’ leaks.But let’s not fool ourselves.Interference for nepotism, etc., was not born yesterday.It’s just that it had escalated to an extent never even imagined and seen and heard before.
So going back to your question, of course it is a striking victory for ‘Sanzman’, but it is important we take stock of the fact that it is much much more a defeat of the previous regime which led naturally to the victory of the Opposition.
* The election results, which few even pollsters and political observers saw coming, have again broken down the traditional rural-urban divide (the 4-14 versus other predominantly urban constituencies). What does this outcome reveal about the Mauritian electorate and their true motivations, despite unprecedented financial incentives from the outgoing government?
Indeed, as I was saying above, the 60-0s have the beauty of bringing unity of purpose across the majority of the people. It is to the credit of the majority of the people that the sentiment of disgust was so high that the ‘poisoned freebies’ did not even stand a chance. People have held to their dignity and have refused to be bought. I think we should be proud of this.
There was so much talk of money politics but in these columns itself, I had said that in 1967, the opposition side was clearly endowed with a treasure chest. But the people proved that money does not make an election when there are larger issues in consideration.
It would be wise for all to remember this. You know, when Mr Jugnauth made his announcement on pensions at the publicly paid-for partisan gathering for senior citizens at SVICC, I noticed that he did not get the ovation that one would have expected… and that he himself would have expected. In fact, he was so taken aback by the lukewarm (not to say cold) reaction, that he immediately said:“kinn arrive, mo pa p tann zot; zot pa finnmanzegramatin?”. I must say I was also intrigued, and, on that day, I had posted that clip on my Facebook page. On that same day, I realized that things were probably not as rosy for him as we had all thought. Even though, at that time, I would still say he had the edge – electorally speaking – over the Opposition.
As I mentioned earlier, it’s not just one thing that turns an election around. It may be a single event that crystallizes a pent-up sentiment, but the vase of disgust fills gradually, drop by drop, over the course of five years. Then one thing happens, and it crystallizes everything. For example, if elections had been held two weeks after the Belall cyclone when people died in Port Louis, when cemetery walls cracked under flash floods, surely the Opposition would have won then too.
* However, we also have to contend with the fact that 27. 8% of the electorate voted for the MSM, indicating a loyal core of supporters. This base may fluctuate over the years, depending on the party’s ongoing political fortunes or otherwise. It’s therefore clear that the MSM remains a significant force and cannot yet be dismissed entirely, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes, you are right in reminding us that some 27% of the electorate voted for the outgoing regime. But don’t forget that this included the MSM and its 2019 allies PLUS now the PMSD. Whereas in 2019, the MSM and its then allies minus PMSD had garnered 37% of the electorate.
Still, you are right to point out that some 27% of the people did not vote for the ‘Changement’ government. And this is why I hope that the new government will not ostracise this 27% of the people of Mauritius, but on the contrary, reach out to them to include them into the reconstruction of our country’s institutions. The reconstruction of our country period.
As an electoral force, one would be very politically naïve to completely dismiss the MSM indeed. Just as when some people said they had thrown the Labour Party into the ‘poubelle de l’Histoire’. Such arrogance has no place for anyone who has some political maturity.
* Regardless of the MSM’s future fortunes, the fact remains that democracy and the FPTP system can — and indeed did in the 2019 election — produce an elected majority, namely the MSM-led government, that five years later nearly 72% of the electorate could not support and firmly rejected. Does this outcome raise questions about the representativeness of our electoral system?
Yes and no. In this ongoing debate about the ‘representativeness” of our electoral system, we have always had to weigh the pros and cons of having political stability vs strict electoral representation. Here, when we talk about ‘representation,’ we are referring to political parties. However, representative democracy in a plural society means that the parliament should reflect, to a large extent, the diversity of the people. One aspect of diversity that is often overlooked is the gender factor.
If we are able to slice a 60 candidates list almost to perfection when it comes to the ‘representativeness’ on the basis of community and caste, it is very revealing that we still cannot – in 2024 – take into account that half of this population is made up of women. It reveals that a progressive agenda on the lips of everyone is exactly that: lip service. And that is very regrettable.
But with this 60-0 no one will have any excuses to come up next time with any ‘pincement au coeur’, ‘regret’ or ‘appelà la comprehension des femmes’. It is expected that with 60-0 there is now no excuse whatsoever not to bring the required amendment to the Constitution for the Electoral Commission to disallow any party which does not have 50% of women on their list of candidates.
Yes, you heard right. I am not shyly, almost whispering 30% – which was what was on the international agenda more than 20 years ago now. Yes, I am boldly saying 50%. Nothing less will do.
The international progressive agenda is all about parity. And parity means half. Meaning 50%. This is going to be one of the litmus test of the real progressive agenda of this government. It now has no excuses with an absolute majority. In fact, they should bring this amendment soon – before the municipal and district council elections. The Constitution was amended for regional elections so that each party would mandatorily have 1 out of 3 women. That is now dépassé. Now we need this amendment to be updated to ensure parity.
Time will tell whether the new government truly has a progressive agenda, at least on this score of gender representation. And I am not talking of parliament, municipal councils and district councils only. I am also talking about Boards of Directors both in the public and private sector. Let us see just how much will change on that score with a 60-0. That will be a real litmus test.
* Despite expectations of a close race, 62.579% of voters backed the Opposition alliance, leading to a 60-0 outcome under our First Past The Post system. This could delay discussions on introducing proportional representation. What are your thoughts?
These 60-0s come with their plus and minuses obviously. On the plus side, given that this is an alliance government, I think many in PTr(Labour Party) sighed a huge sigh of relief that every single PTr candidate got elected. It means that the PTrwill not be held hostage of any allies. Now this in itself can be good and less good, depending on the actual policies that the PTrwill bring. Will the PTr (Labour Party) lead a genuinely progressive policy agenda?Or will it join hands to allow for broad daylight policy capture from the economic elite – historical or new?
What will be the role of ReA in defining and ensuring that a progressive policy agenda has pride of place?I think ReA brought a lot of credibility on that score and I can only wish that they pull the PTrto its original historical ideological space. And I am not talking of just academic dogma or lip service mumbo jumbo. I am talking about the evidence of the bankruptcy of the ideology that “the rising tide lifts all boats” translated into the now debunked narrative of “you must cook the cake before it can be shared”.
As an ideology, as a practice, this has been proven over and over again to be wrong. It has been discredited by no less than IMF economists like Jayati Ghosh and Angus Deaton. As recently as in March this year, Angus Deaton had this to say in a blog published on the IMF website:
“Like many others, I have recently found myself changing my mind, a discomfiting process for someone who has been a practicing economist for more than half a century. …Without an analysis of power, it is hard to understand inequality. ”
Jayati Ghosh went further: “much of what is presented as received economic wisdom about how economies work, and the implications of policies is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong. For decades now, a significant and powerful lobby within the discipline has peddled half-truths and even falsehoods on many critical issues.”
I dare think that the ReA MPs would have no problem to intellectually grapple with the above statements. My concern is how many of the other MPs will actually advance a progressive agenda and unabashedly demand implementation thereof?
What will a 60-0 win be worth if historical parties, born from a progressive agenda, fail to use their absolute majority to implement substantive reforms, such as a true deep réformeagraire (not just soundbites of sécuritéalimentaire, etc) which goes well beyond rhetorical motherhood statements?
When will this country be able to say “Ni chaînesnimaîtres” to the strangehold of a deeply structurally flawed economic system?
We hear a lot about institutional reforms, which of course are necessary and urgent. But without touching the premises of a the deeply flawed economic architecture, the institutional reforms will end up being necessary but not sufficient.
Let us see how things unfold. Time will tell.
* Do you see the ReA remaining steadfast in its ideological proposals? How do you think the power dynamics will unfold?
Personally, I am really hoping that ReA will remain steadfast in what has been their ideological stance so far. How much that will be possible to reconcile with the systemic octopus that tries to grab everyone and squeeze their breaths out will depend on the strength of character of the individuals. It will also be a test for them in terms of constancy of language and purpose.
But we must give them the space and time they need. It is early days yet and there should be no a priori procèsd’intention. Let us see how things unfold with time.
* What lessons should the leaders of Alliance du Changementtake from this election regarding the motivations of today’s uncompromising electorate, and how can they best address this sentiment in the years ahead?
We were just talking about institutional reforms. There are indeed a huge number of reforms that should be on the menu. But the signalling from the newly formed government will be crucial. Are we going to continue with a ‘train de vie del’etat’ at the expense of public funds as before? Are we going to abolish the post of Vice President as was previously committed?
Are the new ministers and MPs going to place their orders for flashy gas-guzzling cars while they swear in on a government programme which extols the virtues of environmental sustainability?Are we going to have these ego trips of personalized plates like “One and Only” or “TD18” paid for by public funds?
These were the visual signals of the mentality and oversized ego of the previous regime right at the beginning of their mandates. The people who voted out with much fervour the previous regime will be watching.
* What about ‘MissiéMoustass’ himself? Social media is abuzz with speculation about his shift toward becoming a ‘MissiéKarapat’ and ‘Missié Chantage. ‘ What are his true motivations, and how much of a threat could he pose to those in power in the future?
Clearly this was a ‘règlement de compte’ of a war within the previous kitchen cabinet. I don’t know what the motivations may be beyond a ‘règlement de compte’. I think we will have to wait and see whether there is anything else.
* In your view, what should be the top priorities or urgent matters for the next government to address?
After the deep dives in terms of the quality of our institutions at the hands of the previous regime, there are many!Almost an endless list.
And we can talk about real content perhaps another time because we could talk till the cows come home.
For starters, I would say the rule of law. There cannot be a country where citizens live decently if an ordinary citizen is left wondering whether the rule of law applies to some but not to others. This kind of environment fosters sentiments of discrimination and injustice.
If we are to build unity and have solid nation building, the rule of law must apply and be seen to apply to every single citizen regardless of his or her “réseautage” – whether that is the networks of freemasons, socio-cultural groups, communal/caste based groups, or the group of those who queue up to leave fat envelopes at political leaders’ doorsteps for financing of political events.
Basically, we must move from being a “réseaucratie” to a real democracy. It’s a tall order because “réseaucratie” has been putting its roots deep into our soil for decades now. But that is what real systemic change means. That is what “rupture” must mean. Sanzmanmust mean change from ‘rezokrasi’ to ‘demokrasi’. Otherwise, once again we would have fluttered around the surface of things without disturbing the malefic roots that are actually the root cause – no pun intended – of injustice, discrimination, nepotism and corruption.
Therea lot, lot more. But if we were to address only this “réseaucratie” malady, we will already have made huge steps in the right direction.
Then, as I had mentioned before, we need to tackle the ‘train de vie de l’Etat’. Do we really need 25 ministers, 10 PPS, hundreds of advisors for the 25 ministers plus some 100 plus councillors to manage our country?
What about the functioning of the Executive and the Parliament?Will our Executive function according to a Cabinet-based system or a quasi presidential one?The Westminster Cabinet system has much more checks and balances than the French based presidential governance mechanism for sure.
What about the Parliament?Will it again – true to a Westminsterian model – have many Parliamentary committees on issues like the Economy, Inequity, Ecology, Diplomacy, Education etc., which will work, come up with reports which will then be debated fully in Parliament?Will the working hours of Parliament be considerably extended?
And beyond such institutional reforms, there are actual content that has to be tackled. One of the first thing that comes to mind is the battle against drug barons who are grinding our youths to their graves. This is probably one of the thorniest problems to be tackled and solved. Amongst so many others.
* Without resorting to any form of witch hunt, a thorough clean-up is nonetheless essential to restore the proper functioning of institutions like the police, judiciary, and anti-corruption and anti-money laundering agencies. This would ensure that law and order, as well as constitutional principles, are firmly upheld. What’s your perspective on this need for institutional reform?
I know that a lot of people want blood from a relentless witch hunt. While I may understand that sentiment and while I agree that people should face the law for any misdeeds, I tend more to think that we have so little resources – police and judiciary — that we should focus on building for the future.
I would be in favour of an amnesty for the past on the strict condition that going forward, everyone is going to be holier than thou in their behaviour and actions. No arrogance. No discrimination. No injustice. No nepotism. No corruption.
This is the dream that most decent Mauritians have, regardless of their political affiliation. Is that a dream that the announced ‘dream team’ will be able to deliver upon? Time will tell.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 15 November 2024
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
Related Posts
-
“L’écrasante majorité de ces indécis ne voteront pas par adhésion en faveur du gouvernement ou de l’opposition…
No Comments | Aug 4, 2023
-
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 30 December 2022
No Comments | Dec 30, 2022
-
The End of History – and of Truth
No Comments | Feb 5, 2021
-
Le Ravin Railway Platform
No Comments | Aug 25, 2017