The last 46 years of Mauritian politics are full of rich, diverse and colourful events, dramas, unexpected turns and an array of competing political parties. There have been highs and lows, major political leaders and parties have all had their share of setbacks, humiliation and lessons to learn. This coming election will be no different, the only unknown is which leader and party will face setbacks, humiliation and in need of lesson learning this time?

This coming election has a central, dominant issue at stake that is both controversial and divisive among voters, that of ‘constitutional reform’ as proposed by the PTr/MMM alliance. In that light, it might be instructive to consider two parallel election cases.

First on the local scene, we all know that the elections of August 1967 were of supreme importance precisely because at stake was the central issue of independence of the country, a controversial and divisive issue at the time. Clearly, there were two main parties/alliances before the people; the choice was crystal clear - voting for one meant independence for the country and voting for the other meant no independence as proposed. We all know the results and the changes it meant for the country and for its people. The 1967 election was essentially a referendum election. Our next election has also been described by many as such in relation to the constitutional reform proposal.

The second case study is international. In November 2007, national elections were held in Australia. On one side was the Liberal party (conservative, right wing supported mostly by businesses) and on the other side was the Labour party (liberal, left wing supported by trade unions and workers). The 2007 Australian election was unique in that at stake was also an all important, central, controversial and divisive issue, known as ‘Work Choices’.

Briefly, ‘Work Choices’ was first passed as law by the then sitting majority government in 2005 as an amendment to the country’s Workplace Relations laws. The amendment allowed employers to place their employees on an ‘employment contract’ that could be defined very broadly by employers. This meant, among other things, that if an employer wanted to write in the employment contract that an employee could be terminated at will without any prior notice, he could. This provision superseded previous laws that had required all employers to give a minimum notice time before terminating an employee.

Leading to the 2007 federal election, a large part of the population as well as trade unions became vehemently opposed to the Work Choices program while at the same time the sitting government became increasingly unpopular on this one issue. The Opposition party, picking up on the prevailing mood of the electorate built their 2007 electoral campaign on a commitment to end and undo the Work Choices program in its entirety should they win the election. Clearly, this one issue, ‘Work Choices’, became the centre piece of the 2007 Australian election with the outgoing government defiantly defending and insisting that  Work Choices will stay and the Opposition vouched to end the program in its entirety. The 2007 election became essentially a ‘referendum election’ on this one, central issue.

The particular issue at stake aside, several telling similarities between the 2007 Australian elections and our own current political situation stand out and can be instructive to us:

1)   the then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. John Howard, had been Prime Minster for 11 years and was popular and loved by many. Our current Prime Minister has been in office for the last 9 years plus 5 years previously, and is popular and loved by many;

2)   leading up to the elections Mr. Howard had become increasingly unpopular and controversial and the voters became increasingly angry and divided as a result of this one issue that Mr. Howard had introduced in the country. It can be said that our current Prime Minister is experiencing a similar set of electorate sentiments regarding  his proposed constitutional reform and a second republic that he wants to introduce;

3)   John Howard was criticized at the time for putting his personal ambition before the good of the country. In his case, it was perceived by many that Mr. Howard was primarily concerned about building his legacy. He was at that point Australia’s second longest reigning Prime Minister after Robert Menzies’s 17 years record. On the local scene, the current Prime Minister has made his personal ambition clear for the office of President as the next step in his political career, and his ally, Paul Berenger, for Prime Minister;

4)   up to 2007 the Liberal party of Australia had spent more time in government than any other Australian political party. idem for the Mauritian Labour party locally;

5)   leading up to the November 2007 Australian elections, Mr Howard was exuberantly confident, even arrogant about the certainty of his party’s victory at the coming elections. idem again on the local scene;

6)   for about 2 years prior to the 2007 Australian elections, there were continued unrest, bickering and leadership changes in the Opposition party (Labour) and less than 1 year before the 2007 elections, the Labour party surprisingly elected an unexpected new leader to their party and as Leader of the Opposition. Kevin Rudd became a formidable opponent to John Howard leading up to the elections and presented himself to the people of Australia as a credible, alternative Prime Minister. On the local scene, for quite some time now, it seems that we have not had a real Opposition party in government with all the remake on/off, the koz koze and bickering going on. For months it was not known who Ramgoolam’s opponent would be at the next election until several weeks ago (less than 1 year to the elections) when the new Lepep alliance was firmly established and SAJ presented as the alternative Prime Minister for the next elections.

The parallels between the 2007 Australian elections and our upcoming one are indeed striking in my opinion. But here is the surprising part.

In spite of his enormous popularity over many years and in spite of his overconfidence of winning the 2007 elections, not only did John Howard and the Liberal party lose the 2007 election by a huge devastating margin (they won only 55 out of 150 seats), John Howard himself lost his long standing seat in his own constituency. He was voted out completely.

What a shock, never seen before! How could a much loved and respected, 2nd longest reigning Prime Minister and the party who had been in government the longest in Australian history have such a dramatic, crushing defeat at an election? Yet, it happened. There might well be other cases in history.

We should not think for one minute that a similar scenario could not happen here at our next election despite the veneer of confidence on display by the ‘Second Republic’ alliance and despite the fact that mathematically the numbers are in their favour.

Mr. Howard and the Australian Liberal party experienced an embarrassing defeat, a crushing humiliation and had to learn some hard lessons by the results of the 2007 elections. The public had felt that their voices, concerns and wishes had been ignored by the Liberal party and they made it known in their votes. Setbacks, humiliation and lesson learning are no respecter of persons, political parties or countries. What is certain and true however, is that in a functioning democracy the votes of the people and not the wishes of politicians, are and will always be the last word on any controversial election issue.