There was something exceptional in the past week in Mauritius. On the one hand, the general elections seem to be closer than was expected. While the population is still basking in the excitement of declining prices, they will be asked to vote the government back into office. Very calculating. Simultaneously, a watered-down version of the MPL (Muslim Personal Law) is tabled. It is claimed that these proposals were already in the last election manifesto. And damn fools we are for not reading the fascinating party literature before we vote.

Again, it was the vote calculator that decided the timing of this announcement. There is nothing better than a few religious figures campaigning on your behalf. In a multicultural country like Mauritius, with its very sensitive divisions, it is obvious that religion permeates politics and vice versa. Politicians see this as a rich source of votes. After all, it saves them money and time campaigning, as they can count on their religious emissaries to pass on the message of goodwill.

But increasing the powers of the MFC (Muslim Family Council) is another attack on the secular nature of the country. The political class seems to favour a balkanisation of Mauritius over a policy of unity. Instead of putting religious differences clearly in the background, where they belong, politicians tailor the dialogue along divisive lines. And we fools did not read the small print of the election manifesto or listen to the vague declarations of the prime minister on the question.

All the three main parties had at some point considered extending the powers of the MFC, but the way they proceed about it is a growing trend in all democracies. Instead of having a debate on a certain sensitive subject, they prefer to capitalise on their majority to rush through laws that threaten to change the fabric of society. Politicians are then more than happy to lay the blame at the feet of the population and the media. It is no epiphany they say. We should have read their election manifesto.

<B>Read the manifesto or be damned</B>

But this does not only happen in Mauritius. Politicians across the world are too well versed in these unscrupulous methods. Last year, the Irish government announced a referendum that looked to remove the automatic rights to citizenship to anyone born in the country, unless the parents are Irish. Asked why it was tied to an election only 2 months away, the government replied that it was in their electoral manifesto two years ago. What they had said in their program was that they would consider the question. A mandate to them meant that they could tinker with the Constitution without a proper debate.

Arrogance on the part of politicians is nothing new. But democracy was supposed to take away the patronising nature of rulers and replace it by humility (?of the people, by the people, for the people?). However, they have found a way around this maxim in the form of their superb PR apparatus. And this brings us to the worrying trend of electoral promises. There is no doubt that we will hear many in the coming elections in Mauritius. However, the ease with which they are broken after a few years or even months is all part of the Machiavellian nature of electioneering. Broken election promises are increasingly causing voter dissatisfaction and alienating the people from politics.

Take New Labour and its leader Tony Blair. Now, even his chancellor has called him untrustworthy. In 1996, before their rise to power, they told everyone who wanted to listen that they would introduce laws to restrict monopolistic media ownership in the UK. But, once in government, the whole issue was quietly brushed under the carpet. Media products are following the American trend, becoming concentrated in fewer hands.

Ireland is no different. In 2002, before the elections, the government outlined that it would improve the health sector, cutting hospital waiting lists and increase development aid to poor countries. On the first count, the government has all but reneged on its promise. There are at least 350 people lying on trolleys in hospitals because of a lack of beds.

As for the second pompous announcement, the fact that it was fanciful did not take long to emerge. Two years later, the government said that it would not meet its meagre target of donating 0.7% of its GDP to poor countries, despite signing up to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

<B>Reneging on promises</B>

Historically, there have been some spectacular promises to the people. In 1928, Herbert Hoover promised to ?end poverty?. Soon after, the Great Depression hit America and suddenly it was ?beggar thy neighbour?. Politicians are like street peddlers, trying to sell dreams to people, rather like our hawkers; two dreams for the price of one. But their exaggeration has contributed to an erosion of public confidence. The population is increasingly cynical towards the political class.This creates a vicious circle, making the promises ever more ludicrous to catch the attention of the people.

This is why we need to be careful about the small print in electoral manifestos. It is where all the secrets lie. While politicians are more than happy to present their optimistic forecasts in public, using the media to hammer their more eye-catching policies, they consign their most outrageous ones to the dull literature of their program. We might hear of democratisation of the economy but it could well read otherwise.

The small print of electoral programs is on par with broken promises, in that it treats the population as fools. It is our fault if we do not read their badly written, tedious and lengthy propaganda. The enhanced power of the MFC is highly disappointing, a very base political coup. The government is willing to divide the country into segments, each one getting some concessions. In return, it can count on their votes to tally up an electoral victory.

<B>Diren valayden Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</B>