“Any man can overcome adversity. If you truly want to test his character then give him power.” In a little less than three weeks, the electorate will entrust one man with more power than most of us can ever dream of having. The trouble is that both the candidates vying for this privilege have, at one time or another over the past decade, already occupied office without convincing voters outright that they deserve another term. Power, it seems, is a volatile weapon that can backfire when not used with discernment, fairness and firmness.

Despite economic growth having been strong during the 1995-2000 period, the end of Navin Ramgoolam’s stint as Prime minister was mostly greeted with a collective sigh of relief after the country had come close to a racial conflagration of monumental proportions. His message, that the country needs change, has been greeted with glee by some and circumspection by others. It has not, however, created the tidal wave of fervour that he affirms it has. Unless, of course, the wave is a tsunami and only makes itself known once it comes into contact with something of substance.

Paul Bérenger’s term has been somewhat more mitigated. A period of relative stability has been dampened by the globalised liberalization of trade and the toll they have exacted on two of the economy’s pillars. The high rate of unemployment, a rising sense of insecurity and a couple of blatantly electoral moves, such as this year’s budget exercise, have further downplayed the credibility of the government’s leitmotif, that the country needs to continue on the path it has been following since 2000. Hence it’s inability to impose itself convincingly.

Somewhere in between the “need for change” and the “need for continued progress”, lies the undecided voter. Everything seems to indicate that his final choice will decide on the outcome of this particular joust. He knows that the elections are one of those rare moments when he will have a meaningful say in the democratic process. He wants to be courted, coaxed and persuaded before committing his precious vote to any given politician or party. He also knows that politicians will promise almost anything in order to get elected but that they often succumb to selective amnesia once they secure tenure. He therefore needs to balance the exhilaration of wielding a certain amount of power with his instinctive weariness of facile electoral pledges. The mixed signals he is receiving from political leaders of all persuasions and the closeness of the race are doing little to help him in his dilemma.

The pragmatist will conclude that this indecision is both healthy and worrisome. Healthy because it shows the vibrancy of democracy and worrisome because whoever gets elected will, in all probability, not have a strong mandate for the next five years. Given the socio-economic challenges the country is facing, such polarization could be harmful. Adversity, though, is much easier to deal with than power.