A government made up of the three main political parties that would govern Mauritius. In other words, the three main political leaders ? Navin Ramgoolam, Paul Bérenger, Pravind Jugnauth ? all in the same coalition government with one of them obviously leading the coalition hence the country. To form an authoritarian government. So that policies deemed good for the country can be implemented; so that there are continuous government policies that wouldn?t be sacrificed at the altar of popular disgruntlement. Much like Singapore. And especially in the face of upcoming economic difficulties that will result from the international financial crisis.

Oh and also - there wouldn?t be a political opposition. The guard dogs would be a free press, an independent judiciary and responsible trade unions. This idea, expressed by Jean Claude de l?Estrac during one of his weekly radio debate programs on Radio One, has been subsequently debated by some editorialists; the politicians themselves haven?t so far been too keen to comment.

In theory, the idea seems interesting enough. Not so, thinks Ram Seegobin from the militant leftist group Lalit. ?The idea is philosophically unsound. Just because there is no opposition at the moment doesn?t mean we don?t need one?, he told l?express. Lalit, he adds, will be taking a stand on this ?proposal? very soon. He adds though that such a thought is ?dangerous?.

The proposal in fact came with the realization that all three mainstream political parties in actual fact, don?t greatly disagree on policy matters ? mainly economic matters ? but because two of them are supposed to be opposing government, things don?t get done or get postponed indefinitely. ?The country is not moving. (?) Because all three leaders want to be in power. We?ll let them all be; we might get somewhere?, said Jean Claude de l?Estrac.

Malenn Oodiah, who was another protagonist of the debate on Radio One, says he agrees with the principle of the idea put forward but regrets the fact that Jean Claude de l?Estrac didn?t delve his idea further: ?What does he mean by this authoritarian government? Would it be a one off? Would it be something we would need to build on and enhance national unity? Would this be a permanent feature of our country??

The suggestion couldn?t have been meant as a one off if the idea is to enable continuous policies. As far as ?national unity? is concerned, Jean Claude de l?Estrac said, the whole point of his suggestion was ?only the best people would be involved.? He reckons - and quite rightly so ? that, when one particular political party is in power, ?capable people from the other parties are made redundant and remain uninvolved? either because they are not wanted or because they need to oppose ideas and policies just for the sake of it.

<B>Competence without racial representation</B>

If all three parties joined forces, says Jean Claude de l?Estrac, then competent people of all political colours, would be called upon to work for the country. And this is an idea that Faisal Abdoolah, columnist at Impact News, finds disturbing. He acknowledges that to put such an idea into practice would mean that the mediocre would have to go and make place for the best people in each party. ?What if the best all come from one particular community?? he asks, wondering whether Mauritius is mature enough to accept a competent government where racial representation is not taken into consideration.

Good point! Malen Oodiah thinks Mauritius is indeed ready. ?I would be ready to bet that if a referendum was carried out, most people would say yes to such an idea.?

But over and above what people want ? and experience has shown that the majority can often be wrong ? this ambitious plan would only work if one was dealing with trustworthy and honest politicians. ?Yes, it would all depend on the people?, agrees Oodiah. And for the moment, the three leaders are Ramgoolam, Bérenger and Jugnauth. ?All three are dictators and hopefully they would neutralize each other?, he adds.

And all this would presuppose that the press is indeed free and agenda-less, that the judiciary is peopled by the right people and that trade unionists reinvent themselves and their ideas. A good plan on paper, in other words.

And what if the people have had enough and want change, as one is entitled to in a democracy? No political opposition, as pointed out by Ram Seegobin. So we?re back to square one.

De l?Estrac argues that it?s for the greater good. But who gets to decide what is the greater good?