Some time in May, the British people will go to the polls to choose their representatives in Westminster. Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives have decided to play the race card with the enthusiastic approval of the tabloids. Labour, acknowledging the ?concerns? of the public, or rather the media hysteria, proposed its own plans, albeit of a less radical nature.

Michael Howard wants to impose a quota on the number of asylum seekers accepted by Britain every year. Another uncompromising and debasing measure accompanies this ugly proposal. Immigrants will be subjected to compulsory medical screening for diseases, like TB and AIDS. Imposing a ceiling on refugee status allocation will see Britain abandon the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR).

But since the electioneering in Mauritius is threatening to descend into sordid and cynical communal calculations, let us take a look at the UNDHR, of which we are a signatory. Article 18 states that ?Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the right to change one?s religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one?s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.?

However, in Mauritius, some sections of the political class tend to believe that the prime minister should not have the right to freedom of religion. Apparently, he should be of a certain religious creed, a member of the majority. There is no doubt that the majority will rule because of the First-Past-The-Post nature of our electoral system. But the highest position in the country is not the right of anyone bar the person chosen by the ruling coalition. It should come to the person voted by the electorate, independent of cheap religious deliberation.

But the Mauritian situation is not the exception to the rule. In almost every country, the question of religious belief, race and nationality is used to manipulate the most basic fears of the population at election time. In the United States, the last elections were decided to a large extent by moral values. More precisely, values of the Christian right. In the five years since Bush came to power, he has poured more than $900 million into sexual abstinence programmes, to fight unwanted pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. He was rewarded in the elections when these beneficiaries turned out in numbers to vote for him.

Propaganda and intolerance

Last year?s local and European elections in Ireland saw a record turnout of nearly 60%. If, in previous exercises, the electorate had stayed away, that time the government gave them a reason to vote through an effective propaganda campaign. The elections were tied to a referendum on citizenship, which would deny the right of Irish nationality to children born to immigrant parents. 80% of the electorate voted for a racial definition of citizenship. Crass comments by the minister for Justice, and amplified in a compliant media, saw immigrants labelled as ?citizenship tourists?. Figures released after the elections showed that only a small number of non-Irish mothers were flying to Ireland to give birth. The widespread abuse that the government had talked about proved to be an outright lie.

But the half-truths became facts in the minds of the electorate. Research on voting patterns in the citizenship referendum by Tasc (Think tank for action on social change) revealed how decisive the referendum was in attracting voters to the polls. It was found that people who cast their votes on citizenship left with their ballots for the local and European elections. In other words, they came to vote only on citizenship, an issue they seemed to rank above the choice of their representatives on city and town councils.

The rise of religion

In continental Europe, it is not radically different. Denmark has passed repressive laws against immigrants, while the headscarf ban in France is now infamous. Austria and Italy both have far-right parties in the ruling coalition. Elections are increasingly fought with anti-immigration rhetoric rooted in irrational, hysterical and flawed thinking. The racists have gained new impetus since the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre. Gradually, ?The Clash of Civilisations?, by Samuel Huntington, has become the textbook for those looking to divide the world along simplistic assumptions of race and religion.

Though there were few fundamentalist states left at the turn of the century, religion is again assuming an increasing role in democracies. According to the US Centre for World Mission, there are about 15% of atheists and non-religionists globally. Of the 85%, made up mostly of Christians, Muslims and Hindus, 60% are adherents to their faith. The rest do not practise. This creates an almost equal divide between believers and non-believers. Out of this 60%, there is only a small group of fundamentalists, those who would like to see the affairs of the state closely intertwined with religious teaching. But it is this minority which is in ascendancy, leading to an impression of an irreparable schism.

The practice of religion is enshrined in Article 18 of the UNDHR. But religion cannot dictate the workings of democracies. The Mauritian Constitution unambiguously upholds the secular nature of the country. This same document has allowed us to live in relative peace since independence. Communalism is cyclical, more acute at some times than others. But, when exploited at the crest of the wave, it can produce devastating results. We do not have to look far back in history.

We should not forget how the 1999 riots almost veered into sectarian strife. This year the electorate will have the chance to show the red card to communalism and its proponents. It is a unique occasion to clean our society of this nauseating stench. The onus, as in all democracies, lies with the population.

Diren

Outlook Correspondent in Dublin