Sigmund Freud would have greatly enhanced his research in psychoanalysis if he had studied Mauritian politics to support his maxim about the ?narcissism of small differences?. He postulated that very similar types of people often exaggerate the small differences between themselves as individuals and distort them into life and death struggles.

We see that all the time amongst our neighbours and families where real or imagined differences are blown out of all proportion in a subconscious attempt to create as much distance as possible between the individuals concerned. This is exactly how our political parties are behaving, except in their case the attempt is not subconscious but rather a deliberate ploy to hoodwink the people into thinking that they are not the same as the other (bad) lot.

The Labour Government 1995-2000 was notorious for refusing to make public the findings of any Commissions of Inquiry but never disguised its mendacity with a spurious appeal to business confidentiality; it simply refused to disclose because the findings painted a pathetic picture of a government in paralysis.

What can one charitably say about Bérenger?s incredible assertion that he has not read the report on the biggest bank fraud in our history and that only a few Bank of Mauritius big wigs are entitled to do so? In the editorial in l?Express- Dimanche, Jean-Claude de L?Estrac accuses him of lying in Parliament and bluntly portrays what everyone believes to be the truth: ?Il l?a bien lu, ce rapport.?

Despite the many shortcomings that have become evident lately, Bérenger has always struck most people as someone with good political skills and awareness of the limits of persuasion. Did he really think that people would buy this farcical story that the Prime Minister of this country of limitless political intrigues and chicaneries cannot find the means to read a report that was commissioned out of the same public funds that we voted him to safeguard? Did he not realise that by admitting his impotence in this matter, he would (a) give credence to subsequent allegations of cover up and (b) provide ammunition to the opposition that his impotence is indicative of his unsuitability for the job of Prime Minister?

He really ought to have a good look at the quality of the advisers that he has appointed on extravagant salaries and expenses: if this is the best advice that they can offer, Bérenger would be far better off listening to the good people in markets, shops, and the barbers? saloons who would have freely advised him to come clean on the report now in order to avoid any future political damage. As it is now, the lack of official disclosure puts Bérenger on the defensive and, whether he likes it or not, he becomes tainted with the MCB scandal(s).

The opprobrium which should have been rightly heaped on the MCB and the Central Bank has been instead deflected onto his own head by this nonsensical display of impotence and arrogant assumption that people would believe him simply because ?moi, premier minis pe dire ou?.

He has shown political ineptitude of such magnitude that he is now forced to adopt a position that is morally indefensible. You cannot be prime minister and adopt an ostrich-like stance when the biggest bank fraud in our history has been committed on your watch. As for being unable to see the report despite holding the highest office in the land, say it to the fairies because none of us believe you.

In a response to Raj Meetarbhan?s factual editorial about the lack of details in Ramgoolam?s speech last Sunday, Cader Sayed Hossen gives a long, rambling lecture purporting to show that the Labour Party leader?s speech did contain specific details about policies on democratising the economy. He then goes on to give a long list of statements of purpose that completely fails to shed any light on what exactly Labour intends to do in power.

There is not one clear, detailed policy outline amidst this ocean of generalised, trite, hackneyed statements, full of buzz words like empowerment, unbundling, outsourcing, etc.. No, Mr Sayed Hossen, we know already about empowerment, democratisation, etc; tell us how exactly you will do it so that we can compare your policies with those of your opponents and then decide who to vote for. It is called democracy.

A famous journalist once remarked that you know a party political statement is nonsense on its own if its literal opposite in inconceivable in the opponents? mouth : for example, ?democratising the economy? as a political statement without any specific details is a load of tosh and mere verbiage; Bérenger and co. are unlikely to say that they will not democratise the economy! Likewise with corruption: every party will scream ?we will fight corruption? but in the absence of any details regarding this fight, we know that what these politicians mean is they want the chance to inflict their own brand of corruption on us.

As Mr Sayed Hossen has taken it upon himself to reply so quickly on behalf of his leader, I hope he will keep this avenue open and allow democratic debate to flourish. In my zeal to join Ramgoolam?s quest for the democratisation of the economy, I asked him some questions in an article in l?Express 12th January 2005. He could not have missed it as it was helpfully titled ?Navin Ramgoolam?s unanswered questions?.

Nothing too taxing, just simple questions that every citizen would like political leaders to answer and which they have conspicuously failed to do for the last thirty years. It may be he missed that particular edition as I think he was still enjoying his Xmas holidays in London.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of fairness that has suddenly hit me, I would like to ask similar questions now in order to allay the generally held suspicion that politicians are all self serving, corrupt individuals who take it in turn to plunder our finances every five years whilst exploiting the narcissism of small differences between themselves to fool us.

1. Will a Labour government legislate within its much vaunted first 100 days for a register to record in full the assets in Mauritius and abroad of all members of the Legislative Assembly and senior civil servants and to update it annually? This is just one of the conditions for good governance put forward by Transparency International.

2. Our economy cannot afford any extravagance and Ramgoolam is so right in criticising the government?s purchase of armour plated limousines for senior ministers. Will he do the decent thing on taking power and get rid of these dictatorial monstrosities or will he be unable to resist the temptation to glide smoothly into these 5 star hotels on wheels?

3. How many of your party workers will the taxpayer have to subsidise as so called advisers on salaries that we cannot afford?

4. All experts agree that our flagging economy will get worse at the current rate of expenditure. Will you lead by example and drastically cut the extravagant salaries and expenses we pay members of the Legislative Assembly? Will you curtail the obscene number of travels abroad for politicians and senior civil servants at our expense? Will you remove the scandalous nonsense that does not exist in any other democracy of rewarding well off people with duty free cars?

5. True democratisation of the economy means that the gap between poor and rich is not so wide as to make it unmanageable and give rise to social tensions. Is it morally defensible that a textile worker earns Rs 4000 per month whilst someone like Ramjuttun has been earning Rs 200,000 plus expenses per month for the last 5 years doing god knows what?

6. Will a Labour government undertake in true democratic fashion to release in full all reports commissioned at the tax- payers? expense? Will it release the N?Tan report that is now the basis of allegations of cover up?

7. Will the government legislate as soon as possible to impose time limits on the length of time the police can hold people in custody without charging them? Will it reinforce the Bail Act so that people are not unnecessarily kept in custody leading to an explosion in the prison population?

Let me give the following example: Why was it necessary to confine people like Varma and Kusrathsingh in prison for such a long time and with such damaging publicity on the say so of a self confessed violent, drug dealing psychopath and in the absence of other evidence and independent witnesses?

There are so many other questions that I would like to ask you but your probable lack of response prevents me from wasting my time further. I do live in hope, however, that Ramgoolam will ?empower? you to answer the above and initiate a democratic dialogue.

Perhaps he may want to ?outsource? the task of answering to someone else; in any event, it does not require much effort to ?unbundle? resources to answer these direct questions; just honesty will suffice. And a real effort to persuade us with detailed policies and not trite mission statements that you are not like the other lot and that the differences between you are not small.

R.A.J.

?You cannot be prime minister and adopt an ostrich-like stance when the biggest bank fraud in our history has been committed on your watch.?