by Dreewin RITTOO

Recent articles in the press about national unity have revealed tacitly the aspirations of some Mauritians to have a Mauritian nation.Though those civic desires are very salutary to our society, they should not insinuate that we are not a nation.Definitions about social or political concepts are ephemeral and the concept of ?nation? is one of them.We have moved from the idea that common cultural heritage or common geographical origins, among other things, make a nation, to another that asserts that a nation is an aggregate of people of one or more cultures or races organized into a State. The property of commonness still exists and is imposed only by the laws of the state.Undoubtedly we are a modern nation. And we shall be more of a nation as the nation-concept democratises itself worldwide.

The question of national unity is the major issue of any multicultural State. Some thinkers of this country might suppose that the gradual suppression of the cultural affinities of our multicultural nation would enliven the national-unity spirit. It is at sight contradictory and thus cannot be true.We are not after uniformity in this country. Our Mauritian dream is that of ?unity among diversity?. Uniformity cannot therefore be the unifying thread of our multicultural fabric. Moreover, this is not the will of the people. The will of this nation is that each of its cultural components is fairly recognized and has the freedom of expressing a voice that would enrich the values of the State, thus creating the feeling of participation in the realization of the Mauritian Dream. Our unity is therefore the overlap of desires of sharing to belong.This is the present unifying thread of this multicultural nation conducive to a modern Mauritian attitude.

Our political system through the Best Loser System(BLS) as an attachment, seems to endanger our unity and its elimination is frequently entertained. It is true that BLS has played its role when the attitude of the then new Mauritian nation was confusedly mixed with reason and ?communal? emotions but that was an ingredient in the will of the people .Time has worked things out properly with the help of ?I am first a Mauritian? resulting in an assertion that the truth that one?s interest is best represented by ones own people is not induced in the statement that one?s interest is best represented by only one?s own community or gender. Our present government proves this assertion. This is the major reason why BLS is out of political and social context.Though BLS is not against the principle of sharing and belonging and thus not a threat to national unity it can become so only by the abuse of it just like there is abuse of democracy. All in all BLS is simply an ineffective hangover of past attitudes.

Our past colonial history showed the unique aspect of the principle of divide and rule. It was mean because it was meant that way.That principle is a threat to our Mauritian Dream. Its scars are so deep that they still blur the ?subtle distinction? that exists between the recognition of plurality of this nation and its division. The gap is so small that it has been made the game plan of those who are not ?I am first a Mauritian?.We should therefore widen that gap by highlighting that distinction so that those who are easily led astray, could differentiate between the weaving of our multicultural nation with the thread of sharing to belong from those ?who cut and paste?.

If recognition of our entities : the principle of sharing to belong or the freedom of cultural expressions, in its inclusive sense, is an essential part of our Mauritian dream, then calling our nation ?le peuple arc-en-ciel? would not be a vain name.

We are a unique nation. For we dream about a concept involving powerful multicultural dynamics that would be one day the ?jewel in the crown? of democracy. That dream is ?Unity among diversity?.