In 1964, Monocle, an American quarterly magazine of political satire, ran its news editor, Marvin Kitman, as Republican candidate for president. At that year’s party convention, he stunned reporters when he declared: “I prefer not to discuss the issues, because I am campaigning on my personality.” Of course, this was a publicity stunt conducted by the magazine. Later, one of its founders, Paul Navasky, would become the editor of the radical newspaper The Nation.

However, these words of Kitman seem almost prophetic today. George Bush himself campaigned two elections on his personality or the dour one of his rival. In Mauritius, during the last general election, Navin Ramgoolam told us without a hint of irony that he has changed but that he has also not changed. Paul Bérenger campaigns as Paul Bérenger, historic leader of a historic party, and so on. The electorate is treated as a pack of morons who don’t need to know about policies until the week before the vote.

Lest we think this is only a Mauritian symptom, here is an Irish example. In the past week, all the parliamentary parties met to discuss their future policies and strategy for the next election, due in 2007. The main opposition, during its get-together and subsequent interviews with the media, declined to reveal their policies. They merely declared that they would not raise taxes and they would present winning policies at a later date.

Déjà-vu? Seems they have caught that Bérenger bug, which on this count, it must be said has travelled faster than the avian flu could ever dream. In fact, politicians are birds of one feather; all colourful sound-bites but thin on policies, or rather policies that would eliminate inequality, deliver a fair society, care for the disadvantaged and end poverty. Their policy unit is geared towards cronyism and nepotism. But this is damaging to democracy.

Party loyalty

A BBC World Service poll found that 65 % of people said their country was not governed by the will of the people. In Europe, where democracy originated, 64 % of those surveyed concurred with this damning statement. In Mauritius, the current government chose populism to masquerade their lack of ideas on the future of the nation. In Europe and America, the rate of participation at elections is in permanent decline. Low turnout, disinterest in anything political and outright cynicism are conspiring to destroy the very fabric of a society, which supposedly espouses a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

While, in Mauritius, we can boast a participation rate of over 80 % at elections, the manner in which we cast our vote is hardly worth of praise. Racial and communal indulgence often guides where we place that cross on the ballot paper. Party loyalty is another one of our voting benchmarks, despite the fact that the main parties have been devoid of any new ideas for years. A profile for New Internationalist magazine describes the then prime minister as such: “Sir Anerood Jugnauth, leader of the Militant Socialist Movement. However, the name is misleading, as there is nothing socialist or militant about the party.”

Lack of credibility

If there is a lack of meaning in any of our main political parties, then what about this great world institution, the United Nations. Engulfed in its biggest crisis since its creation, it looks wounded and bereft of credibility today. Established to bring peace to the world, it stood dumbstruck and paralysed while nearly a million Rwandans died in genocide. Its authority was then challenged when the US and the UK went to war in Iraq with the devastating consequences that we now see unravelling nightly on our television screens. And last week, the UN summit, which was designed to bring sweeping reforms to its institutions, failed dreadfully. Among the biggest letdown and the one that sends the wrong message about democracy, were the botched reforms of the Security Council.

The UN, despite its General Assembly and its myriad of member countries, is virtually under the thumb of the Security Council. But this institution is at the same time the most undemocratic branch of the UN. Though being the world’s most populous democracy, India is not represented. As such, how do France, Britain, Russia and America justify their veto and their permanent seats though the four combined still speak for fewer people than India?

The countries usually attributed seats on the council are often rewarded for their servile attitudes. Mauritius weaselled its way to a two-year stint by enacting a Prevention of Terrorism Act and bending backwards to pursue a neo-liberal economic agenda. Once there, tied by AGOA, we voted whichever way our US masters wanted. To compound it all, the UN itself has been rocked by the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.

But, what was equally farcical about the summit, was the $10,000 contribution by Mauritius to a Democracy Fund set up by the George Bush. If only the American president was elected democratically, it could have been considered normal. But everyone knows how the 2000 elections were stolen in Florida and the ongoing investigations into the results of Ohio in 2004. Democracy, like Orwell said many years ago, has become a euphemism for what is good, but ultimately empty of any sort of signification. Are the Americans really democratic, when they support repressive states in the Middle East and Latin America, when they invade another country without UN approval?

Ultimately, we must ask ourselves what exactly is being sold. Brand democracy has lost most of its credibility. The people, who should be the lynchpin of such societies, find themselves increasingly disenfranchised, with no say in the decisions that affect their lives. Political parties are more concerned with power for its own sake and, in the process, democracy is subverted to such a degree that it might be too late to turn back.

<B>Diren VALAYDEN</B>

<I>Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</B>