During the past few weeks, we have been subject to the whims of our minister of Finance and the prime minister in their romantic disputes. Just like in every traditional household ? one of the couple will have the last word ? we have witnessed how our political leaders have bowed down to the caprices of their partners with solely a promise for a better future.

We all clearly understood the reason why Rama Sithanen was ready to resign from his post, but unfortunately what brought him back is beyond our understanding. In the past, we have many times seen the resignation of great political leaders and the reasons behind their decision has always been anchored on concrete beliefs sustained throughout their battle, however attractive counter-offers could be. Rama?s decision can surely be digested, as the post of governor of our well-established banking institution is traditionally associated with a high degree of integrity, expertise and founded on a blemish-free reputation: all of these characteristics unfortunately missing in some way or another in the new recruit. To our dismay, Rama Sithanen has sadly shown us that he has not been working for a pretended far greater cause but for his own restricted purpose.

The tension between himself and other members of the Labour party with regards to his budgetary measures and other unpopular policies, added to the arrival of Mr Bheenick as governor of the Bank of Mauritius only proved that it would be more difficult to continue this implementation. The appointment of the governor was definitely pictured as a speed-breaker in all ground work so far initiated by Rama Sithanen in his quest to tighten up all wastage in current expenditure incurred by the State. Seen from an economic point of view, his measures make sound financial sense. All his policies are axed towards trying to substantially decrease government expenditure on ?unnecessary? areas at the detriment of more popular measures. Traditional economics would be ?pro-Sithanen? in his approach to uplifting our investment frontier, which in turn would boost our economy, while at the same time tightening all leaks in the government?s treasury (what is popularly known as killing two birds with one stone). But that leaves unanswered whether Mauritius actually needs this type of restriction when the whole world is opening up with master words such as ?globalization? and ?free market economy?. Internal policies contribute to the business climate of a country to potential investors and manipulation of various economic instruments gives an indication of how we greet foreigners into Mauritius (you will recall the latest problem we had with a dramatic shortage of foreign currency in Mauritius). Maybe we Mauritians are no longer interested in containing the economy for the sole purpose of a Welfare State it represents to the eyes of some, but we are willing to accept, as a great economist I knew used to say, ?Give the rich, to feed the poor? and not try to feed the poor with money from the State only. We cannot afford to have contrasting ideologies as far as policies of the governor of the BoM and the minister of Finance are concerned.

However, a new threat can be seen in Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo?s approach with an openness to market forces that might help Sithanen in his willingness to bring fresh investment in Mauritius and gain popularity and trust of his colleagues; hopefully hitting these two birds with one stone is a far better way of showing his worth.

Hannah