?It would have to be brought to them from without.? So wrote Vladimir Lenin in his 1902 text What is to be Done? Thus, according to him, while workers can revolt in sporadic and spontaneous actions, they cannot attain revolutionary consciousness by themselves. There must be a ?vanguard? of revolutionary leaders within the revolutionary party that will guide the proletariat in their struggle against their oppressors. Hence, the Party will bring the revolutionary consciousness to the workers. In other words, the people cannot represent themselves but they must be represented by an elite group. This is exactly what the government wants, a form of Leninism in the education system. ?We cannot abolish elitism,? they all shout.

The idea of elitism in society is not a new one. Kings and queens have always justified their position as a divine right. Even liberal democracies are based on elitism. The founding fathers of the greatest democracy, the United States, expected their new society to operate in that spirit.

<B>Elitism from tyranny to democracy</B>

The people should become mere observers, voting from time to time to elect their rulers, but they must not participate in policy making. This must be left in the hands of the elite. They can then pontificate among themselves on what is best for the country and, ultimately, their own interests. Of course, the elite know better than the rest, the common people.

This same doctrine runs in the veins of British democracy. Since its beginning, in the revolution that brought Parliament and the King in conflict, nearly 400 years ago, the elites have stressed on their right to rule. The English radicals of the time were making a simple demand: the right to vote a representative government. One radical pamphlet read: ?And unnatural, irrational, sinful, wicked, unjust, devilish, and tyrannical it is, for any man whatsoever? to appropriate and assume unto himself a power, authority and jurisdiction to rule, govern, or reign over any sort of men in the world without their free consent?? However, the elites had different ideas. The people could not rule unto themselves. They could not contemplate ??the lowest of the people? taking power and governing ??over persons and estates of all sorts of ranks of men from the king on his throne to the beggar in his cottage.? If three hundred years later the people got their wish, the assumption that an elitist minority should decide what is good for the rest remained.

So much for liberal democracies. And so it is in Mauritius. No wonder that politicians see elitism as the foundation of the education system. The ?lowest of the people? should not mix with the elites, for fear of contamination of these little princes and princesses. Of course, they would claim that education is free and that anyone can have access. However, anyone with a sense of reality and a dose of reason will see the fallacy in this argument. How does life for the rich and pampered compare to that of the less fortunate? They justify the unravelling of the reforms by claiming that competition is necessary. It might be, but it is criminally insane to impose it at such a young age. After all, the reforms had not eliminated competition, merely delayed it. The minister of Education is arrogant enough to say that parents will decide if they wish to expose their children to the cruelty of the system. If the politicians of proximity think thus, then heaven help us.

<B>Not as educated as we think</B>

As anyone can witness throughout the IT sector, the dearth of local workers has slowed the growth and development of the local industry. The failure to invest in education has led the project into a dead end. Our outdated education system needs even more reforms than those instigated under the previous regime. But now even the modicum of progress achieved has been made obsolete by grotesquely callow thinkers in the country. A quick glance at the last United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) shows how much we are still lagging behind in education despite all the economic achievements. Its Human Development Index (HDI) ranks the country 64th among 177 countries surveyed. On economic merit alone, we are in the top 50 countries. However, the ?education index? reveals a different picture. Among the top ?medium development? countries, Mauritius has one of the lowest ?education index?. Bulgaria, Malaysia, Russia, and Albania, whom we all outstrip in terms of GDP, all get a better ranking in terms of education.

The HDI table reflects two things: our lack of investment in education and the quality of the education. Some countries, with dilapidated finances, have better education indexes. The occupied territories in Palestine have an education index of 0.86, despite the wholesale destruction of its infrastructures by regular attacks by the Israelis. It is an impressive feat for a population terrorised on an almost daily basis by jet fighters and tanks, to achieve high educational standards.

Also, Mauritius has one of the lowest public education budgets among the top 100 countries. It was even squeezed in the nineties. From 3.5% of GDP in 1990, public spending had shrunk to 3.3% of GDP by 2001. In Mauritius, we are duped every year by the high success rates in the HSC exams and by the media frenzy over the laureates, which also contributes towards this elitist culture. However, there are many more who fall through the net. Some are absorbed into the polytechnics but so many more are not.

As a society, we should care in equal terms for both the so-called elites and those who do not fit this category. However, it is sickening to see politicians revel in such unabashed celebrations of elitism. And it is hypocritical for those who came to power on a ?democratisation of the economy? platform to raise the flag of elitist education.

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