ASK THE average Mauritian what he thinks of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The reply one is bound to get is that he was an affable man with good manners, sensible to the plight of the weaker sections of the population and the man who led the movement for the independence of his country.

Recently, I stumbled on the special issue of a magazine dedicated to Sir Seewoosagur in 1993 with a list of contributors all lavishing praising on the gentleman that was SSR, extolling his virtues, good qualities as human being and his concern for the well being of the population. The writings were couched in such emotional tones that one could not but be reminded of the famous speech of Mark Antony in Shakespeare?s Julius Caesar when Mark Antony with the dead body of Caesar by his side told the Roman people ?when the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept?? and the people started believing him, broke in tears, and went on a rampage.

That SSR has earned the undying respect of the people is undeniable. However, of all the eulogies, I enjoyed reading the one entitled ?Nous étions complices?, written by Sir Gaëtan Duval. The testimony of SGD throws light on a different trait of SSR, that is, one of a politician. When conducting his business in politics, SSR was not a naïve weather-cock, he took parliamentary politics in all seriousness and could not thing of life without it.

Shortly after the general elections of 1967, SSR wanted to rope in the PMSD in a coalition government. Duval was riding on the crest of popularity and the PMSD as a strong opposition was giving sleepless nights to the government more so as SSR usually felt a sense of gnawing uneasiness when lampooned with criticism. Duval turned down SSR?s offer in the face of mounting pressure from his supporters who were not in favour of a coalition.

When Yvon St-Guillaume flouted his party?s discipline by attending the independence day ceremony in 1968, cracks in the PMSD edifice were for everybody to see. SGD stated that Ramgoolam demonstrated an uncanny knack of exploiting people?s weaknesses to his advantage because of his profound knowledge of human nature. ?Mèdecin et philosophe, wrote Duval, il connaissait la faiblesse des gens et en abusait?. For example, he could assess the worth of some of the PMSD elected members and depending on their worth would lure them with the idea that the grass was much greener on his side.

SSR was also known for his ability to engineer splits and provide refuge to defectors. The defection culture was assiduously propped up so that it became a folklore in local politics. The leader of the PMSD stated that ?Ramgoolam était sans doute à l?affût des transfuges, des vendeurs? Toute sa stratégie politique était basée sur les transfuges. C?est-à-dire acheter les gens au prix qu?ils valent?. This could be explained by the fact that SSR was not an ideologue but it was to his credit that he was alive to the ground realities of Mauritian life. He was intellectually self confident to be able to change and adjust his ideas according to changing circumstances as could be seen during his political career ever since he made a guest appearance at the head of a delegation at Le Réduit in 1937 to reassure Sir Bede Clifford of his ?unflinching? support in quelling down the troubles fomented by the Labour Party of the legendary Maurice Curé.

Duval asserted that he was stubbornly resisting the call of Ramgoolam to form a coalition government but the latter was doing a sniper?s job, encouraging PMSD members to defect and sending a veiled signal to the leader of the PMSD, that if he persistently refused to join the government, he could find himself ploughing a lonely furrow in the PMSD.

So, when Duval buckled under the pressure of Ramgoolam in 1969 for the sake of national unity and interest of the country as it was being doled out, the PMSD turned out to be the biggest casualty. Its popularity felle to low ebb. SSR watched the fireworks set to his neighbour?s house. The PMSD was torn apart with on one side defectors jumping the fence to join SSR and on the other, the anti-coalition faction walking out to launch the rickety UDM which nonetheless had in its fold a number of honest and some of the finest intellectuals of the time, like Guy Ollivry, Maurice Lesage and Raymond Rivet.

Ramgoolam had a smart way of sending opponents lumbering to their political sunset. He never had recourse to the unconventional methods used by most African leaders of getting rid of unwanted opponents. Robespierre too started off as a democrat and pleaded for the abolition of death penalty, yet later guillotined thousands. But SSR, acclaimed as a democrat in the so called Nehruvian style, wielded charm and charisma and operated within a legal framework in dealing with opponents. Who would say that he was doing undesirable things like clamping down POA, IRA, etc illegally ? It is not known yet what former US President Richard Nixon had in mind when he received SSR. It is said Nixon was in the mistaken belief he was receiving the dictator of Mauritania ! This amusing anecdote is given by Henry Kissinger in his book Years of Renewal and commented by Geoffrey Roberts on in the Observer newspaper of 4 July 1999.

Whilst in government, it was said Duval was given a free hand to act. He admitted having taken at times decisions without cabinet consultation. His actions were driven by impulsion and this was not to the liking of some elements led by Sir Harold Walter and Sir Veerasamy Ringadoo. For example, when in the Council of Ministers Duval announced that he had already agreed with Pretoria for a South African consultate to be set up here, Ringadoo showed up his opposition and put a stiff upper lip in anger. SSR took Duval?s hands in his telling him not to continue the discussion. ?It is a good thing to jump the dog?, SSR said according to Duval.

Again, Duval asserted in the statement that he was confident of a Labour/PMSD alliance electoral victory in 1972. The view then held was that it was Duval who masterminded the postponement of the elections until 1976. Duval would state that SSR was so scared of losing the elections in 1972 that he took the decision all by himself of postponing the genenal elections. Duval said he was accomplice and felt a sense of guilt later in supporting that decision as well other unpalatable decisions of SSR which were resented by the general public especially those which touched upon civil liberties.

The absence of a strong opposition party provided fertile ground for the emergence of another party in the political landscape, the MMM. In an interview to l?express in 1993, Guy Ollivry who fell out with Duval stated that the MMM stepped in the slot vacated by the PMSD. This view is confirmed by an influential member of the MMM, Jayen Cuttaree. In a tribute to SSR in the Legislative Assembly on 24 December 1985, he stated that ?the MMM was born in 1967 in opposition to his (SSR) government?. By the time that Duval returned bruised and donned anew the mantle of opposition leader, having been ejected out of the government, the MMM had successfully made strong incursions in the PMSD vote banks as the 1976 general elections would confirm. Nonetheless, in the face of the severe onslaught of the MMM in 1976, SSR again negotiated a deal with Duval and dashed all the hopes of the MMM to form a government for the first time in its history.

SSR?s attention was also turned to the MMM. In his speech on SSR in the Legislative Assembly, Jayen Cuttaree stated that the MMM leadership was trying on several occasions ?to negotiate with Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam some form of collaboration in order to revive the ideals which had inspired the founding fathers of the Labour party?? Those negotiations, it appears, were thrown out of gear. As stated earlier, SSR was not a preacher to carry a load of ideological baggage on his head nor was he keen to reform the Labour party which he controlled perfectly well with loyal supporters who swore by his name only. As pointed out by Sir Veerasamy Ringadoo in an interview to Week-End on 15 December 1991, SSR cherished power and so long as the system in place suited his purpose, he would stick to it. Ringadoo said, ?Je dois avouer que je n?ai pas vu de volonté sérieuse de sa part pour un changement. Si le système lui laissait les mains libres, ça lui convenait, il menait le bal?.

SSR was perhaps a tired politician at the fag end of his life but it is said seldom does a politician retire and SSR is a vivid example. One could admire him for his trait as a good human being. One should also not forget that in the management of politics he was ruthless and dictated his own will as the testimony of Sir Gaëtan Duval showed.

Anand MOHEEPUT