Subron Statements That Don't Survive A Fact-Check

1. We have reached the end of a cycle so we need a new constitution (2023 onwards). Bérenger and Ramgoolam have reached an advanced age and are way past the date they should have retired from active politics. Ramgoolam hasn't been looking healthy for quite some time – and he's been an unmitigated disaster as PM when he was – while Bérenger is seeing at least one ghost in Parliament. Subron is now a pensioner. Our constitution has not aged one bit though. It's still a national treasure that will serve us well for the next 100,000 years albeit with a few overdue additions. Subron seems to be confusing the cycles that a typical human goes through with our awesome constitution that was built to last many centuries. It's like the Hindu numerals, they have not gone out of fashion for the past 2,000 years. I don't know of anybody who wants their smartphone to run on Roman numerals.

2. Our FPTP system doesn't allow any new party to emerge (At least since 2010). 

PM Presses Ahead With Own Version of Banana Republic

The bill on electoral reform in the National Assembly (NA) is effectively as dangerous and crappy as the one we massively rejected in December 2014. It doesn't solve anything and shrinks our democracy. Given that we don't have recall elections and statute referendums yet it is important that enough MPs abstain and vote against the introduction of proportional representation (PR). It is even better that a few MPs resign from parliament to send another clear signal that we will not allow Lepep to break yet another of its pledges and put MPs at the centre of a conflict of interest. Let's focus on the parts of this bill that are most dangerous and deal with three misconceptions.

Lev Pake Reste Turns 10

Yes. Already. A recap. So Ramgoolam nominates Bheenick as Governor -- one of his best decisions ever but that too after a year and a half of doing God knows what -- but Sithanen is unhappy so he threatens to resign or maybe he does. The PM is out of the country at the time but makes an appeal to the Minister on national tv. The latter eventually changes his mind -- after about a week -- when his pick as the BoM chief gets the SBM chairmanship. But not before swallowing something that's not exactly a grass snake and creating an urgent need to amend one famous Chevenement formula.

That was a really strange week. See if a Minister cannot be present at his office there has to be a colleague who steps in for him. We've seen this so many times: another member of Cabinet will answer parliamentary questions on behalf of the officeholder when the latter is out of the country. If a Minister resigns our excellent constitution takes care of that seamlessly. And that too without the PM having to be at his desk. The Ministry can also be reassigned to another colleague. For example SAJ held the Ministry of Finance for a few months last year. So did Ramgoolam in 2014. But none of those happened back in February 2007.

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (2)

What are we trying to solve with electoral reform? Mostly two things. One is to get rid of the Best Loser System (BLS) – which was the closest thing to stamping us like cattle that one could come up with – and therefore comply with the UNHRC ruling. The other is to try to reduce the unfairness of the First Past The Post (FPTP) system without compromising its stability. Of course both of these objectives can be achieved without introducing the totally undemocratic devices like proportional representation (PR) and double candidacies as proposed in the white paper -- which is nothing more than the toxic 2012 Sithanen report less 4 MPs. Above all we must not lose track of the most important purpose of our Parliament which is to provide good, long and healthy lives for a maximum of citizens by the design and implementation of thoughtful policies. Right? Let us begin with a little bit of history.

Down with PR

As Yashwant Jeewoolall reminded us recently, Labour was dead against PR when it was proposed some sixty years ago. The progressive individuals of the time fought against PR because they knew that party lists would shift the loyalty of MPs from voters to leaders. Indeed if you read Chit Dhukira's Experiments in Democracy you will find out that Philippe Rozemont -- Guy's brother -- was expelled from the Labour Party because he voted in favour of it and that Renganaden Seeneevassen was one of the fiercest opponents of PR. There was even a bye-election in 1956 which revolved around PR and which the Labour Party won. So suggesting PR would be a betrayal of the DNA of the Labour Party.

Mauritius Edging Dangerously Towards Plutocracy

Have you ever really asked yourself why taxes were flattened to 15% between 2005 and 2010? Probably not. That was done because it made the wealthiest segment of the population a lot richer. Not because of some bogus Triple External Shocks argument. And some politicians would want to do this because the opaque financial contributions they receive would get larger. A lot larger. Even if it meant killing savings in the economy or throwing a lot more people into poverty. This is called a plutocracy. Not a democracy.

Indeed Household Budget Survey (HBS) data tells us that there were an extra 500 or so poor people in Mauritius after the first term of Navin Ramgoolam. But that by 2012 there were a record 22,000 more people that were thrown into poverty – bringing the total of poor Mauritians to 126,200 – compared to the preceding five years. Which coincides pretty much with his second term and the start of the reforms. That's like increasing the speed at which pockets of poverty are created by 44 times.

Thoughts on Electoral Reform (I)

Not sure I understand the logic of giving us only 42 days to send our submissions on electoral reform after taking 389 days -- that's nine times more -- to get the white paper out. It gets funnier when you realise that our Government is proposing nothing new. Nope. The Government is instead and essentially recommending that we adopt the January 2012 Sithanen report: something that is deeply flawed and shrinks dangerously our democracy. And which got a University of Mauritius student an ovation when he rightly said -- after hearing it from the horse's mouth -- that it doesn't solve anything.

The six weeks we have to read and comment on the report is also and evidently way too short when you notice the number of interesting articles -- of the non-TINA variety -- that appeared almost immediately in the Forum and elsewhere. I take a quick look at a few at the end of this piece.