If you assume that there is but one partially blind voter in each constituency and that each manages to put three crosses on the ballot paper, the outcome is still the election of a government. The point about democratic elections is the consensus that emerges and not the rationale of each vote. The secret ballot rules out collusion among voters.

Hence, ex-minister Gayan’s arguments that the electorate is not mature enough to vote for a non-Hindu PM is pointless. There is no way to prove this and when it is considered that Mauritius had exactly such a PM for 21 months, it is illogical and untrue. The history of Mauritius, in spite of the racial incidents of 1937 and 1967, shows its strong tradition of coexistence and tolerance of ethnic groups.

It is impossible to model electoral behaviour in any democratic election; simplistic conclusions are invariably wrong. What is certain is that voters decide on the basis of their own subjective perception of issues. Both age and experience affect the issues considered in the first place. For example, textile workers weigh issues that are completely different from those in the services sector. The outgoing government’s inability to demonstrate a clear record and future strategy for coping with the consequences of the end of the Multi Fibre Agreement and of sugar subsidies exposed its fatal weakness.

The fact that not a single member of a minority party or an independent candidate was elected suggests that the electorate is mainly motivated by party affiliations and only marginally by other considerations. Both Baichoo’s re-election in spite of his defection, and Hurnam’s humiliation lend support to this conclusion. What does affiliation consist of? A small minority votes for the same party regardless. However, floating voters, who are swayed by arguments put by the main parties, determine election results; electoral loss arises because of a combination of the failure of the party to put its message across and a perception that the alternative is better. On the other hand, it can simply be because of a bad record in power.

<B>Implied change</B>

In the 2005 elections, the campaign lasted two months but neither party published its manifesto until a week before the polls. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the details of their respective agenda for the next term of government did not have a strong effect on the outcome. The long campaign that left the affairs of the country in a state of flux at a critical time, when the effect of the removal of sugar subsidies was becoming clear, and the ex-PM’s indecision regarding the MCB and squatters clearly had an effect. Strangely, the fact that the avowed goal of ‘progress’ echoed the Social Alliance’s aim for ‘change’ was completely lost on the ex-government’s strategists. By definition, progress implies change; or, was the ex-government promising progress meaning more of the same? Why did it not say so?

Without the benefit of being in the country during the campaign, my own conclusions are that the ruling government was kicked out because of two factors. Firstly, it concentrated on negative campaigning seeking to discredit the opposition in all respects including ecology and religion. Secondly, it failed to publicise its plan on the hot single issues that affected the whole country, namely, the removal of sugar subsidies that will affect sugar estates and small growers alike, and the perception of out-of-control law and order issues such as drugs, increasing crime, including those of a sexual nature, and the illegal occupation of NHDC properties. Above all, his silence on the matter of the etiquette concerning the MSM leader’s family did not give the impression that the ex-PM was the best guardian of fair play.

As a non-voter (being an expatriate), my own disappointment with the ex-PM is much more fundamental. How was it possible for this man to capture the unanimous support of the whole, and at that time somewhat naïve, country in the 70s and to fail in 2005 with a more informed electorate? The 2005 electorate is more informed, liberal, and receptive to political ideas. It was easier to convince by reasoning. Unlike the 70s when he was the idealistic leader of a barely established party, in 2005 he had the benefit of experience, has had the ultimate jurisdiction on the affairs of the country, and had an establish political machinery.

The MMM proved capable of election in the heartland of the Labour Party in 1970; the party was barely two years old. Such was its vision: the electorate knows what a government has done and needs to know what else it will do when elected. Government is the art of dealing with changing priorities. Over time, this vision has been compromised for two reasons. First, the lowering of the age of suffrage to 18 and the big increase in sugar prices in the 80s benefited the MMM disproportionately: the leadership mistook this spike as a trend. Second, the urge for power led to coalitions that had the effect of blurring the party’s message.

If this opportunism is not the complete answer, could it simply be that the MMM’s vision was nothing other than every generation’s desire to change the world into a better place? Moreover, was it destined, like all predecessors, to learn that this could not be done? Whilst the coalition with the MSM might conveniently have provided access to power, how much of a liability was it in retaining power?

What next for Paul Bérenger, aged 58? One option is to write his memoirs, sooner or later: history needs an account of the excitement that the MMM has caused in Mauritian politics, as well as an insight into the man that led it.

<B>Dissolve or merge</B>

A more challenging option is for the MMM/MSM alliance to re-invent and restore itself. The words MOVEMENT (implies transience) and MILITANT (implies disorder, even anarchy) are no longer appropriate as this alliance has experienced power. MILITANT against whom? About what? You were the government! There is no option but to dissolve the alliance or to merge into a single party and a change of name is vital.

Doing nothing is not an option. Transparency or clear accountability is the key to future success. The modernisation of government affairs, the local government structure and the overhaul of the educational system are but three issues that require attention and have the potential for creating universal appeal.

The electorate needs to understand the workings of the government and that includes what its objectives and priorities are and how much each costs. The modernisation of local government will decentralise power, that is make central government less accountable and local government more accountable. A stronger local government confers two other advantages: it creates and reinforces grass-roots support and new blood, and it can target local issues more effectively.

Policies that are kindled at the grass-roots level mature into robust national ones. Education is the single most important issue as it affects the whole country and in an ongoing concern; the present arrangement does not realise and deliver the full potential of the country.

Finally, the party needs a clearer hierarchy that will permit it to function naturally: it is bad management to allow a situation such as that with MSM to arise where a new leader has to be found in a hurry because the existing leader is not elected.

A wise leader is not one that does not make mistakes but one who does not repeat the same mistakes.

<B>Ajay ASKOOLUM</B>