Moods are so ephemeral? Just under a year ago, irrational exuberance bubbled over with roaring headlines such as: Jour J pour la démocratie. A prescient opinion piece read as follows: ?Il reste aux acteurs et aux décideurs politiques de faire en sorte que ce qui est une avancée ne devienne pas une reculade de la République. Car l?enjeu n?est pas le pouvoir mais tout un pays qui a soif de modernité.? It is tempting to plagiarize a winning formula and say that we?ve given 12 months to be ?le pays le mieux reculé au monde?. But that would merely be word play. Instead, let?s say it as it is: today the most fundamental of citizens? rights, as enshrined in the spirit of our Constitution, are in danger of being hijacked right under our nose. After the infamous BBC à la mauricienne, MPL à la mauricienne, and the bafflingly long list of other such inanities we?re now threatened to get a taste of Démocratie à la mauricienne.

To add insult to injury, all this is conducted with revolting lightheartedness. On radio, a minister asserted ? without even a bit of tremor in his voice ? that ?c?est le gouvernement ki pou deside kan pou ena eleksion?. You are wrong, Mr Minister. In this specific circumstance, the government has no right of decision. Instead, it is the people, via their proxy vested in the Constitution, who decide. When a MP leaves, the government?s role is restricted to ensuring that the State?s machinery takes over as duly prescribed by the country?s supreme law.

Of course Mr Chady?s laborious resignation ? and the shady reasons he advanced for it ? inspires nothing but utter disdain. Of course, the ruling alliance is perfectly entitled to feel outraged at the unexpected rain on their parade of incompetence. But this is where the buck stops. The entitlement is one of feelings, not of actions ? except those that are prescribed by the country?s laws, norms and Constitution.

The odious posturing by both the government and the opposition only seeks to blur and erode people?s rights. Amidst these shenanigans, it is crucial for citizens to avoid being caught in the fog of political partisanship and consider with relentless lucidity what exactly is at stake. In particular, the following deserve to be highlighted and deliberated:

An impressive dose of spin would have us believe that amending the Constitution is one of the ?options? being considered. Calling it an ?option? is an aberration in itself because it is more a hijacker?s imposition rather than a genuinely democratic choice. Another piece of rhetoric being thrown around is ?le premier gouvernement qui ira jusqu?à la fin de son mandat?. Only the naïve would fail to uncover the sub-text: the actualisation of the Medpoint deal overrides every other single consideration. Understandably, the return on investment is skewed when the first partner has already walked away with his full share of the three years whereas months could be shaved off the second partner?s two years. However, some people seem to have lost sight of the fact that we, the citizens, do not live by the rules of political deals but by those of the State. Should the tyranny of political bargains prevail at all costs?

There is no valid reason why the by-election should not be held. Both the government and the opposition are swearing allegiance to ?l?intérêt supérieur du pays?. Needless to say that this is really code language for ?what?s in it for me?? The political collusion on the by-election issue is diametrically opposed to the interests of the people and, in particular, to those of constituency No 3 residents. Anyone who cares about democratic ethos will surely agree that it is totally unacceptable for a constituency to be short of a MP for a prolonged period of up to almost a year. Is it right to forcefully induce an artificial parliamentary shortage with the help of a couple of Enronesque tricks?

The Budget exercise is meant to signal a government?s economic orientation for one year. We know that all past regimes have been unable to resist the abuse of power and have appropriated the budget as a vote-rigging mechanism. But these precedents are no justification for the perpetuation of such a vile practice ? the more so, from an alliance whose professed ambition was to ?redresse le pays?. If the budget were to be presented only weeks prior to the dissolution of Parliament, it would clearly show (if evidence were still lacking) that there is nothing that sets this government apart from its predecessors in not missing out on an opportunity to be democratically inelegant. Should the budget calendar be manipulated just to avoid an awkward by-election?

We normally appoint Guardians in order to entrust upon them the safeguard of our property. When they walk in, lay their hands on our most precious possessions and turn to walk away, should we just stand there and shrug our shoulders?

by Nita DEERPALSING feedback: [email protected]