There seems to be some sort of missing link in the present electoral campaign. The social alliance and the government alliance seem to avoid any comment on the difficult economic situation awaiting any government that will be sworn in next week.

It appears that no one is prepared to acknowledge that the new government will have to handle and guide the country out of the five most difficult years it may ever face.

The price of our sugar exported to the European Union (EU) will be reduced by almost 40% during the mandate of that government.

The tourism industry may not fly as high as expected and might not yield the promised growth. Air access might no be the solution, as last year, Air Mauritius had 126 000 empty seats on its Mauritius-Europe flights. British Airways and Air France faced the same problem. Textile?s future is just as bleak.

Government and opposition have both had advanced warning of the oncoming economic tsunami. Strange, but true, the economic problems do not seem to have been the themes of any serious debate. No one seems ready to discuss the way they hope to get Mauritius out of these troubled waters.

This fact is even stranger on the eve of the national polls. Does it mean that our political leaders have concluded that elections in Mauritius are won only by soapbox style speeches and electoral promises restricted to free bus transport and grants for the purchase of computers? If this is the case, it is an insult to a large section of the electorate.

Nevertheless, both parties have shown clear indications of their awareness of this oncoming tsunami. The social alliance leader blamed he government for the oncoming bleak economic situation at his ?national? gathering on Sunday. He blamed the ?failure? of the present government in ?economic diplomacy?.

According to him, government ill-negotiated the sugar price reduction with the EU and applied too late for the ?third country fabric? exemption with the US in the AGOA context. He, however, stopped short of talking of any clear-cut solution or policy on those issues.He merely underlined that he had ?contacts? with French leaders, who would help!

If this nonsense is the proposed solution, then Navin Ramgoolam should think twice each time he has anything to say about economic policy.

Paul Bérenger does not fare any better on that score. He did talk, during his ?national gathering? about ?two major perils? facing the country: the sugar price reduction and the textile sector. But he too stopped short of talking about his solution.

It is in their manifestos that the two major alliances have given a hint of their economic policy proposals. They both advocate modernisation for a more competitive sugar industry and development of by-products.

The social alliance also talks about a modernisation fund for the export processing zone and the Mauritian ?Quality label? and thus seems on the same wavelength as the government alliance as far as vertical integration and clustering are concerned.

But this might be too abstract for very concrete threats. We have that bitter impression that both alliances would in fact try to find a way to cross the bridge only when they come to it.

And it might then be too late. There is, however, one certainty : the party, which will successfully lead Mauritius out of the oncoming economic storm, will send its roots very deep in the political arena. It will resist, for long, slippery ground or political turmoil. Failing, even partly, would mean political hara-kiri.