On 3 July, the electorate of Mauritius will choose its new government. What is the basis of this choice? What is the new government expected to achieve? It is certain that this government will have no role to play in international affairs: Mauritius has no natural resources to offer, is simply not important enough, and does not have statesmen of international calibre. Given the issues on which the two main coalitions are campaigning, it is extremely doubtful that any changes will come about to improve the lives of the population at large. There are no reasons to expect things to be different this time around. Let us consider some of the issues.

<B>Value for money</B>

Mauritius is one of the few countries in the world that offers universal pensions, universal health care, and free education. All those who reach a certain age or have an incapacitating disability, or are widowed or orphaned are entitled to a state pension irrespective of whether they have paid taxes or not. Even in the developed world, individuals' pension entitlements are related to their respective employment records; in the United Kingdom, a housewife who has never worked is not entitled to a state pension. It is clear that neither of the two main coalitions can claim any credit for universal provision: therefore, this is not a prominent issue in the electoral campaign. Given that everyone pays for these benefits, via direct taxation on income and indirect taxation on goods and services, the efficiency of the provision of universal benefits should be an issue that concerns every citizen: are there any plans or promises that set the parties apart? Is the population unaware of the waste represented by nurses and teachers who, on completion of their state financed training, leave to work in other countries?

Mauritius has universal suffrage; that is, roughly fifty percent of the electorate is female. In a cynical attempt to exploit this section of the electorate, both coalitions have elected to discriminate positively in favour of women candidate. Does the electorate want the best candidate, whether male or female, or is it fickle enough to vote for a party simply because that party has put forward a female candidate? If it is, will the parties be cynical enough to discriminate positively in favour of elder candidates as Mauritius acquires an ageing population because of demographic changes? The salutary lesson that candidates selected on the basis of positive discrimination will promptly learn is that they outlive their usefulness the minute that the election results are declared.

The electorate needs to examine its conscience and determine why it votes: is it for shining and politically correct promises or the sustained enhancement of their life style. Politicians need to learn that it is not in their interest to cultivate an electorate who become as cynical as they are. In the UK, the electoral turnout is 60% or less: a low turnout elects neither a strong nor a representative government.

<B>For whom does the electorate vote?</B>

In general, political parties distinguish themselves in terms of their distinct ideology. The ideology of a socialist or left-wing party includes the nationalisation of industry, the redistribution of wealth, and the improvement of workers remunerations, conditions of work etc. A right-wing party will have policies that include the privatisation of state services, the protection of owning classes and industry. Are there any ideological differences between the parties forming the two main coalitions? If there are, are there reasons for their respective coalition other than the desire to be in power? It matters little whether the electorate vote for one or the other of a given coalition. It is debatable whether the electorate has a real choice when the options are candidates from coalition parties. The election of a coalition to government does not promote a strong government since the primary concern of such a government is the appeasement of the different factions that comprise it.

The government offers a multitude of services for which the electorate pays. The list is very long and includes the registration of births and deaths, the issue of driving licences and passports, employment in the civil service, investment in the infrastructure of towns and villages, the provision of a network of schools, dispensaries, hospitals, and other communal services such as safe roads, beaches and safeguards against malevolent agents such as rogue local government departments, traders, policemen and businesses etc.

The electoral campaign has failed to promote any assessment of the efficiency with which the two coalition parties will deliver such services. Why has no party offered service level standards for the provision of such services? More to the point, why does the electorate not demand a service level agreement from every government agency? For example, why does the electorate not demand the advance publication of educational syllabuses for every academic year and the public availability of an assessment of the delivery of this programme in every educational establishment at the end of the academic year?

Is the electorate not interested in addressing the issues of poor performing schools or government departments? Why is this not an electoral issue? Is it any wonder that there is a uniform perception of high levels of corruptions in public office among the electorate?

The supervision of government departments must be under the scrutiny of the community at large and the government should empower the community for this role by promoting such things as parent–teachers associations in every school, local citizen advice bureaus, and stronger local government.

Study the requirements of government form PF 136 as regards counter signatories. In a country that knows everyone of its citizens via the identity card system, why can't my primary school teacher who lives in the same village as myself and now coaches my local football team, and who has known me all of my 26 years countersign my passport application form? Why does the signatory have to be Members of National Assembly, Medical Practitioners, Ministers of Religion, Barristers-at-Law, Attorneys-at-Law, Public Notaries, Bank Managers, Police Officers not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or Civil Servants not below the rank of Higher Executive Officer especially since none of them are likely to know me as well as my teacher? These kinds of requirements underpin the perception of corruption in public life.

Election time is auspicious for the electorate to demand the simplification of access to government and for parties to institute changes that simplify the lives of citizens: after all, it is supposed to be government for the people and the electorate gets but one chance every five years to cast its judgement on both the previous and next five years.

<B>Ajay ASKOOLUM</B>