My Speaker Sir,

FAR from being an island as the geographical definition goes, Mauritius is a continent? by its intellectual dimension. Islanders we are in our mentality and such we shall stay unless we change some old concepts one of which is to give our scholars the opportunity to play their role on a national level. This stage of political evolution is, if not alien to our Constitution, overlooked or subtly suppressed.

While in one country congressmen, senators, policy makers would sit and listen to the arguments of a scholar, invited to comment on an important bill for instance, as he tailors his vision of society, highlights its patterns, outlines his observations, in Mauritius scholars would sit (more often in the front row of the ordeal ? to impress the orators?) and listen painfully to obscure and whiz- kid politicians that we are.

Would it be right to say that to some extent our scholars are themselves responsible for this state of things? Are they too anxious about their social position? Whereas their intelligence, their power of thinking, experience and purity of intention ? whether they are devil or partisan advocate of official policy ? should make them accept the layman?s smile, the PM firm handshake or resentful grudge with scholarly equanimity. It is also true that in USA, to cite once more that country, a Professor of Potomac University can criticize President Bush?s jingoism, his wars or call him a geezer and yet retains his post and continues to enjoy the respect of his colleagues. But that is America !!

Following Montesquieu?s division of powers, it is logically inferred and accepted that the Press constitutes the 4th power. It is so because scholars have time and again expressed their views through the papers. Sadly the Press which has fantastic influence on the populace seem to exert little or non on a class of people who care about scholars? exposés as much as they do for their five year old pair of socks. Just, perhaps, because it?s in the papers! It is up to us to valorize the function and responsibilities of scholars towards society.

Unlike street philosopher Socrates, distinguished guests, heads of state or eminent personalities are not expected to sermon passers-by at La Chaussée or promenaders of Jardin de la Compagnie. Were UN Secretary General, Mr Annan or emblematic Mr Mandela on visit in Mauritius, to do them honour according to tradition, they would be in invited to communicate with the nation through its representatives in Parliament, the most solemn forum for such function, more appropriate than religious place or the State House. And on such occasion, in a synod-like atmosphere, the audience, disciplined and unusually receptive, catches in meditative silence the visitor?s intention as if the Pope were speaking. So why not extend such honour to our scholars.

Time is changing. History calls on us to depart a bit from the Westminster style of running our political affairs. Is not Mauritius a republic? I shall therefore move, Mr Speaker, Sir for an amendment in our Standing Orders. Innovation is the key word nowadays. The one proposed is mainly ethical and concerns parliamentary decorum, enrichment why not enlightenment.

Just think, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the psychological impact if you invite some prominent lawyers to discourse on the ?Anti-Terrorist Bill? or a University professor or a sociologist to speak on the ?Domestic Violence Bill? or a journalist to expatiate on the ?Freedom of Speech Bill? or again a historian to make a plea on the ?Compensation to descendants of Slaves Bill?, before railroading any such bill through Parliament.

Our scholars will be given the official recognition they rightly deserve. Their interventions will undoubtedly, besides enhancing the exercise of political power, creating a serene atmosphere, intellectualizing the tone of eventual debaters, show that scholarly knowledge is useful in the functioning of a harmonious democracy.

Won?t it be a political grace to allow deliberative orators to deal with proposed legislation as was the custom in ancient Greece and Rome? Did not Athens become more prosperous under Solon?s Laws?

I am worried sick to learn that politicians do seek scholars? advice ? in catimini. Scholars are not African witch doctors to be consulted after dusk nor are they like those match makers, born with some special biological genes, who, with Iago?s expertise, make and unmake political marriages for their personal or caste or group interests. These middlemen?s concern for the country is similar to that shown by the Pygmies for the North Pole. Such practice turns our scholars into instruments instead of exemplars.

Days in, days out, the following questions come to the mind of the members of this House as the leitmotiv of a ?Symphonie Inachevée?. We vainly discussed about them in asides or during lunch.

How much is truth being pursued for its own sake?

How far pure research is being cultivated in our young?

How far is tolerance and sincere mutual acceptance observed?

How far the climate of political freedom is being promoted?

To what degree patriotic dedication and feeling has been measured?

Politicians won?t answer these questions objectively. It is up to consumed scholars, brewed in their tremendous experience, eruditionn and acumen to assess these interrogations and submit rational answers after competent investigation and skilled research work.

If scholars were asked to elaborate on their findings in Parliament, they would set the trend.

Scholar?s speeches are monologues in many voices. Their meticulousness in presenting historical clues and facts, their oration mellowed in their years ? long studies of cultures, traditions and sciences, tinted with inevitable shades of philosophy and religious connotations, will enrich our mind, uplift the standard of our language, expand the scope of our vision. Their temperance and modesty will force block headed arrogance to silence or stop us from swapping hateful remarks while they smooth the way to a new dynamism. Listening to erudite makes us listen to ourselves, find ourselves.

So, we all wish Parliament should become a podium for scholars! Now it is hoped that political experts will not consider the intervention of a scholar here as public tuition, nor criticize the initiative through fear of disturbance, for the good reason, Sir, you will be putting a pigeon among the cats.

Still by progressively imitating scholars, we can make our Parliament a centre of excellence, an emporium to barter the fragrance of personal intercourse, a Madame Tussaud?s Museum for vociferous political bullies, a free zone of infectious humour and a greenhouse of fertile tolerance.

Besides kapra, roti and makhan, Mauritians fervently welcome principles of intellectual and moral integrity. Can?t we arrange this House into an amphitheatre where truth will eradicate cheap politics, distinction will oppose base accusations, persuasive rhetoric and sublime declarations will replace futile waffling. In short where ?le sens de l?Etat? prevails.

SSR once said ?The way to make things go is to get things going?. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope this suggestion is welcomed and move that it is opportune for this Assembly, to inaugurate a new era in its procedure, to invite scholars to shower their light on important issues and bills and that it shuns lightweight speeches for example on the figure, gait and charm of such little trouts as Sharmila Tagore and gives more dignity to the wisdom and learned counsels of the nation?s any Rabindranath Tagore.

A.R.C.