The topic being the talk of the town, I submit my views in my capacity of ex-athlete, coach and involvement in athletics. At the outset, we should distinguish between active and passive politics. Almost everybody is interested in politics: we talk privately about our preferences and the reasons why we back a party and vote for it. This is passive politics without restriction. Besides, our Constitution guarantees political freedom as we live in a democratic country with a multi-party system.

However, it is not so easy because democracy has its set of rules and active politics imposes restrictions. Some people are not allowed to engage in active politics, for example, officers in the civil service and parastatal bodies, unless they resign. Some restrictions are: confidentiality, conflict of interest, independence of action and legislation. Active athletes should refrain from active politics.

For the forthcoming municipal elections, we see that at least three active sportsmen are standing as candidates - Eddy Clarisse, Michou Bhageea and Stephan Buckland. I believe that an athlete should not engage in politics either for the ruling or the opposition party. The same reasons as conflict of interest and legislation apply. Moreover, an athlete represents a role model for many people, especially the youth, at regional, national or international level. By subjecting him/herself to party politics, he is restricting his positively pervasive image. He may be perceived as a hero for the political party and its voters only.

Likewise for conflict of interest where an athlete has vested interests other than himself, which may not match good governance principles. For example, an athlete for the ruling party may be tempted to take undue advantage of his position, whereas an athlete for an opposition party may be ill at ease to criticise the ruling party, which is already bestowing various benefits to him.

Legislation imposes restrictions on our daily lives. We must appreciate that, by so doing, it sets order in society. Notwithstanding the fact that our Constitution protects political freedom, sports federations like other institutions, are allowed to make rules and regulations to govern the conduct of their affairs.

I shall quote from the rules and regulations of the Mauritius Amateur Athletic Association (MAAA), one of the avant-gardiste federations, I am familiar with. Rule 31, in conformity with the Sports Act 2001, deals with political matters.

Paragraph 3: The Association will not affiliate as member, any club/region directly or indirectly linked or affiliated to a political party, nor will it allow any person actively engaged in politics to form part of any of its committees or to be an officer of the Association.

Paragraph 4: Any club/region or license holder, which decides to associate itself or himself, for purpose of propaganda to a political party shall be expelled from the Association.

This provision was slightly amended in the Sports Acts 2002 and 2004. Although it is less stringent, however, the guiding principle remains the same. Rule 30, in conformity with Sports (Amended) Act 2002 and 2004:

Paragraph 3: The Association will not affiliate as member, any club/region directly or indirectly linked or affiliated to a political party, nor will it allow any person actively engaged in politics to form part of any of its committees, organisation or to be an officer of the Association.

It is interesting to note that the emphasis is on active politics. Any member of the athletics family, while enjoying political freedom, is not allowed to engage in active politics. Obviously, any such person will not form part of the organization, hence is not eligible for a license from the Sports Federation.

Contradictory to sports ideals

The Sports (Amendment) Act 2002 makes it clear at section 10 (Sports Clubs), paragraph 7(c):No person shall practise any sports listed in the Second Schedule for competitive purposes any he is the holder of a license delivered by the relevant Sports Federations.(The second schedule list Olympic and non-Olympic Sports, including Athletics Badminton and Triathlon). I do not know the provisions of other federations, but I believe that the leaders of the Athletics Federation have made sensible byelaws in all wisdom, so as to deter anybody (officials, coaches, athletes) to engage in active politics.

Sports and political ideals are dramatically opposite. Sports foster personal development without discrimination whereas politics prone national development within discriminating parameters. Sports inculcate unity, tolerance, uniformity and respectfulness whereas, by nature, politics may take these noble qualities to negative extremes.

A politician-athlete may face awkward situations and be called upon to take decisions contradictory to sports ideals. For example, Mauritius boycotted the 1986 Commonwealth Games because Zola Budd, the South-African born athlete participated under British banners. In 1980, there was massive boycott of the Moscow Olympics following USA`s decision as a result of the cold war. Where would a politician-athlete stand between sports and political ideals?

Some active athletes may claim that politics is a way to contribute to the welfare of society. This is a very naive assumption because we know only too well that there are different ways and avenues where we can share our skills and know-how to society at large or simply encourage people to practice sports.

Obviously, Pele and Guy Drut (French Olympic gold medalist,110 ms hurdles) were chosen as minister of Sports well after their retirement from active sports.

Some pertinent arguments

• Have these athletes have resigned from active sports?

• Have they sought advice from their federation before active political engagement?

• Stephan Buckland and Michou Bhageea have contravened MAAA rule 30.

• If Bhageea now avers to be politically active since long, he should have been expelled from the MAAA region since then.

• Stephan Buckland has stooped down from a national hero to a PMSD hero.

• How will Buckland now criticise the decision taken by ex-minister Ravi Yerrigadoo, now his fellow candidate in the same ward, to have reduced his monthly allowance from Rs 20,000 to Rs.10,000.

• Will the perception be that sponsors of active athletes are supporting their corresponding political party.

• The question of payment delay by the Ministry of Youth and Sports to active athletes does not arise. The question is how fast their progress reports will reach the ministry, if ever they will.

• When was the decision to grant a special prize of Rs 300,000 to Buckland taken: before or after his joining active politics?

• Rules are made to be abided, until and unless amended.

• Whatever be the fate of our politician-athletes at the municipal elections or contravention effects, fortunately, we know that all athletes have a big heart. And Mauritians too.

<B>Raj MOONISAMY</B>