With the former Labour MP Siddick Chady’s ludicrous resignation, we seem to have reached the “dregs” of politics in Mauritius. Not only can he not give plausible reasons for his resignation from Parliament but he has also started a political process that has put the country in a maze that nobody could have bargained for in the present local economic and social situation.

His resignation as MP has put the whole country in an inevitable electoral mood, in spite of the fact that both the opposition and the government look more inclined to go to general elections instead of a by-election that would cost a lot of money. However, speculations are rife on what the Prime minister is going to do. And an amendment of the Constitution is now in the air.

MP Siddick Chady from the Port-Louis Maritime-Port-Louis Est constituency handed in his resignation last week after a discussion with his former leader, Navin Ramgoolam. The aim of this resignation, he says, was to “make people more aware of the crisis and discontent the country is facing.”

The question is however whether his resignation will change anything in this crisis and whether he will be more useful outside Parliament than inside? He seems to have forgotten that he was elected by the people and consequently has a responsibility towards them. How could he imagine that he will be more capable of keeping his promises by resigning?

In any case, the consequences of his decision are a far more urgent issue for the future of Mauritian democracy as a whole.

It seems that Siddick Chady has been wrong in thinking that there would be a by-election in his constituency. Opposition and government have both advocated going for general elections. This first reaction seems quite sensible. Yet, does this seemingly shared view express real concern for the country or does it conceal hidden agendas? In theory, Parliament should be dissolved in May 2005 and elections take place within 150 days.

At first sight, the reasons given by both parties look laudable. A by-election will cost too much to the country and would involve too much logistics less than one year before general elections. But this would mean that state affairs - and particularly the presentation of the budget – would need to be postponed or brought forward. This is where the problem lies.

The Constitution states that the government has to organise by-elections within 240 days after an MP resigns. However, if Parliament is dissolved before this deadline, then no by-election is needed but general elections must be held within 150 days. This implies that the presentation of the budget would have to be brought forward.

This budget is however the last one before the general elections and the government has to make sure that it can persuade the population to put it back in power. The PM has thus implied that the Constitution could be amended to extend the period of 240 days to enable the budget to be presented before Parliament is dissolved.

Former president of the Republic, Cassam Uteem, has already expressed his disagreement with this possibility, “This is a political gimmick. The idea of the government amending the Constitution merely to make sure that a budget is adopted is shocking!”

But Paul Bérenger seems to have forgotten two major issues. On the one hand, his original ideology that goes back to 1982 has always advocated democracy. One former MMM member, Subash Lallah, is adamant, “The MMM cannot take the risk of changing the Constitution. This would rob the party of its very essence. This would contradict the party’s principles and everything it has advocated so far.” If he took such a decision, Paul Bérenger would also be neglecting Commissioner Albie Sachs’ advice. The latter stated that the period of 240 days was too long and should be reduced.

Both opposition and government however see general elections as an opportunity. The government does not really want to risk losing a by-election as in Piton Rivière du Rempart. This would damage its morale and image just before general elections. The opposition, for its part, does not really want to venture into a by-election in a constituency which has always been an MMM stronghold.

However, in the sphere of politics, everything is possible. Will the country’s interest and the respect due to the people who voted them into power take precedence over the power game of politicians. Let’s wait and see how this saga unfolds in the coming days…

<I>“The constitution states that the government has to organise by-elections within 240 days after an MP resigns.”</I>

<B>The game of alliances</B>

Party alliances have always been a common feature of Mauritian politics. Political leaders rely on these coalitions to ensure their access to power and attach more importance to their personal advantages than the ideologies of their partners. This is why alliances bringing any parties together should surprise no one. And this is probably why rumours about an alliance between the Labour party and one of the parties in power have been spreading throughout the country. The relations between opposition leader Navin Ramgoolam and prime minister Paul Bérenger look far more correct – even cordial. However, the three main party leaders have made it clear over the weekend that the alliances would remain as they are at the moment. Navin Ramgoolam says he is “not interested in any kind of alliance with the parties in power” while Paul Bérenger and Pravind Jugnauth have assured the public that they will go to the next elections together.