Come hell or high water, the second week of November will play host to one of the planet’s greatest spectacles: the US presidential elections. Firstly, the Americans have to prove that the 2000 election fiasco was an anomaly, not the norm. The electoral college system and the closeness of the race will complicate this task somewhat. Secondly, its outcome will, to a large extent, define how the world’s sole superpower will be conducting its international affairs for the next four years. Yes, the stakes are high.

Although Mauritius might not hold much sway in the arena of international politics – think Chagos and trade – our impending elections offer striking, and often dismaying, similarities with their US equivalent. Let the candidates step forward. The American presidential incumbent, George “Dubya” Bush, will attempt to win another term against John Kerry, senator and Vietnam war veteran. Although Kerry actually shone in the heat of battle, he is perceived as being weak on defense issues. Bush, on the other hand, had never so much as set foot out of the US until he was elected and has certainly never been in the line of fire. Yet, he has waged war on far-flung middle eastern countries and a large portion of the American electorate see him as a strong leader. Let’s see how our local counterparts weigh up against Bush and Kerry. During the revolutionary “mai 68” era, the prime minister, Paul Bérenger, struggled against the established order. He was even imprisoned for his beliefs. Now he is perceived as representing big business. His adversary, Navin Ramgoolam, has never known what it is like to be in the shoes of a “tidimoun” yet he has succeeded in creating the image that he is championing their rights. The parallels are painfully obvious: Bush never went to battle yet is perceived as being a stronger leader than Kerry, the war-hero. Ramgoolam never stormed the barricades in the name of his beliefs yet he is seen as the defender of the downtrodden. Distorted, you say? There’s more.

Bush and Ramgoolam both suffer from a syndrome known in political circles as “the father’s shadow”. A complete lack of political pedigree is compensated for by being the son of a recognizable national figure. Their belligerence is a predictable side-effect of vain attempts to emulate their pater’s greatness. By aggressing the world, Bush has considerably diminished America’s popularity, which was one of its greatest assets during the Cold War. By attacking the private sector, Ramgoolam is undermining the only sector that has been consistently dynamic over the years. Both are misleading the masses by saying that what they are doing is for the good of the people.

Kerry and Bérenger have both shot themselves in the foot, so to speak, by turning their strengths into weaknesses. By not capitalizing on his war experience, Kerry has made himself the unwilling object of Republican accusations that he is a peacenik. Not exactly a winning formula in a country still traumatized by 9/11. By the same token, Bérenger’s failure to remind the electorate of the battles he fought for class equality have made him vulnerable to Labour’s pigeonholing him as being insensitive to the urgent needs of the masses – not a dream ticket during these very volatile economic times.

Kerry and Bérenger are handicapped by stereotypes. Kerry is seen as a Massachusetts liberal, out of touch with middle America. Bérenger’s ethnicity is portrayed by critics as being incompatible with the office he holds. Both stereotypes are way off the mark yet still inflict damage on their subjects.

Bush’s forte is being able to connect with the populace, yet he paid for tax cuts for the rich by slashing spending for healthcare and education. Ramgoolam harks on about being the friend of those forgotten by our economic miracle, yet he regularly holidays in a plush London pied-à-terre.

This list of contradictions goes on. The crux of the matter is that both the American and Mauritian electorates are being asked to bet on a race in which none of the contenders truly represent their interests. The importance of the swing states in the US and the narrow margin separating Bérenger and Ramgoolam here illustrate this. The ideal for both countries would be a young leader who is able to forego partisan-politics and personal baggage in favour of national unity. Unfortunately, none is perceptible on the political horizon so that once again it will be a case of choosing between the least of two evils.