Points
to Ponder
the
game of politics
A
First Point:
We know that the game of politics in Mauritius is not played
according to accepted international rules. We, as a people,
play it differently, and we are proud of our way of doing
things. In most countries, every citizen knows which party
is on the left of the political spectrum, which is on the
right or the middle -- that is a little bit on the left, a
little bit on the right, depending on the local and
international situation.
Who
can tell us which party in Mauritius has a leftist policy,
which a rightist one and which a centrist one? At times the
Labour Party is considered to be a socialist party, it
having been a member for a long time of Socialist
International and therefore slightly on the left. However,
at other times, in relation to economic issues especially,
it seems slightly on the right. But overall, it is on the
left of the political spectrum.
The
MMM started as a party of the extreme left, and we can say
that it won its first general election on this platform. I
still remember its convincing language pertaining to the
nationalisation of some of the biggest sugar producing
concerns in the country and so many other means of
production, but then after the election, all its previous
policies were locked up in various shelves. The MMM itself
changed its previous stance and adopted a more pragmatic and
acceptable policy.
I
have noticed that when the MMM is in the opposition, that is
when it has no responsibility of and for the government, it
sides with those who are on the lower end of the economic
scale. Though it has since long given up its Marxist or
extreme left policies, it makes as if it is prepared to look
after the interests of the less fortunate, but when the same
party is in the government, it just forgets about what it
had preached whilst in opposition to adopt the policy of a
party of the right. Who can tell us where the heart of the
MMM lies? On the left, on the right or in between? But then
the question remains, when did the MMM give up its initial
political stand, that is the belief in extreme left policies
and why?
We
can understand the MSM. Though it took birth as a splinter
party of the MMM, the separation had nothing to do with the
ideology of the MMM, which means that the MMM and the MSM
people had the same ideology before the split. But soon
after the creation of the MSM, the then leader of the party
ditched the leftist policies of the MMM and adopted the
policy followed by the Labour Party. He made a good job of
it, of course with the help of the Labour Party. And the
party has since always followed this very pragmatic policy,
away from the extreme left or extreme right.
It
is this policy of the Labour Party, together with what the
MSM has done, that has brought about the relative prosperity
of the country. If the country had been left in the clutches
of the MMM and other such parties having the same type of
ideology, I am sure that we would have been in the same
position as some of the worst-run African countries,
economically speaking. We know very well what the policies
followed by some of these African countries have brought
about: instead of creating prosperity for the people, the
governments of these countries have only succeeded in
creating “poverty” for the people, if that is at all
possible. What is there to share in those countries but
poverty!
The
Labour Party and its allies have understood what the needs
and aspirations of the people are and they strive to satisfy
them. Whether they succeed or not in this endeavour is a
different matter. But we know at least this much -- you
cannot give satisfaction to all the people at the same time.
If the government can satisfy the wants of at least 50% of
the population, then it would have succeeded as a
government. And so much the better if it can go beyond that
milestone.
The
Labour Party and its allies are good in the government role,
the MMM and its allies are good at opposing as they perform
very well when they are acting as a check on the actions of
the government. I have said that we need a good government
but we equally need a better opposition. So be it. Have the
people understood this point?
Dealing
with drug addicts
A
Second Point: People do not seem
to be satisfied with the treatment that is reserved for the
drug addicts, in the sense that the latter are getting a
better deal than
genuine patients, that
is those who deserve to be cared for by the ministry
of health
either at the various hospitals or the dispensaries. Who is
a patient, is a question that is normally asked.
One
would say is that a patient is one who is suffering from
some disease or other illness that requires medical
treatment, and that person attends a place where the
relevant treatment is available. These places of treatment
are under the jurisdiction of the health authorities.
We
know that there are drug, alcohol and nicotine addicts.
There are various provisions of our criminal law against
those who deal in or use what are technically called drugs
and the sentence that can be inflicted on those found guilty
ranges from a simple fine to a long term of imprisonment. It
is well known that some alcoholic beverages are worse than
some drugs, but because alcoholic beverages are considered
to be socially acceptable, there is no law as such against
the possession or consumption of alcoholic drinks.
People
smoke cigarettes because they want to; nobody forces them to
do so. People drink alcoholic drinks because they want to;
they like to consume their drinks and so also for drugs.
People consume drugs because they want to do so; normally
they have not been compelled by any authority into becoming
drug addicts – although there are cases where evil-minded
people trick youngsters into becoming addicts to later make
money out of them.
Should
all these addicts be given treatment in the same institution
as genuine patients who need real medical care? These
addicts cannot be considered as patients in the sense that
we have mentioned, since at most they have voluntarily
chosen to become addicts. Our hospitals have not been
created for the treatment of addicts. Somebody told me:
“Gouvernement pe soutire zotte vice are tout qualité
traitement qui zotte gagné
dans l’hopital.”
I
have said that those people cannot be regarded as proper
hospital patients, that is to say, neither as out-patients
nor in-patients. I am told that a proper patient has his
hospital card on which are listed down certain details
pertaining to his health condition. It seems the drug
addicts do not have to go through the proper procedure for
getting their cards. Their treatment cannot be carried out
in these institutions and they cannot be under the
responsibility of the ministry
of health.
I
do agree that some sort of treatment may need to be given to
these people; maybe the drug addicts should be given their
dose of methadone or some other substitute, those who are
addicted to nicotine some kind of nicotine preparation and
those who are addicted to alcoholic drinks should be given
the necessary preparations. But this should be done away
from the general hospitals or dispensaries.
The
drug addicts, the nicotine addicts and the alcohol addicts
should be removed from the responsibility of the ministry
of health and
should be placed under the responsibility of some other
ministry, like the ministry of Social Security. This should be done with a view
to protecting the real patients, especially the women
patients as well as the children attending hospitals and
dispensaries. Nobody wants his relatives to be in the same
place as the addicts.
If
government is prepared to spend that much of money to treat
addicts, it means that it recognizes that a problem exists
with drugs, tobacco and alcohol. It has legalized the use of
tobacco and alcoholic drinks. It gets a good revenue from
these two substances. What prevents the authorities from
legalizing, under very strict supervision, the use of drugs?
Is it the contention of the authorities that alcoholic
drinks are safe whereas drugs are not? It can rake in
revenue representing billions of rupees if drugs are
legally used and this money can be used to treat the
addicts. At the moment government is using our money to
treat the addicts and it is unfair.
Some
people are of the view that the government is forced into
its current policies regarding drug addicts and prisoners by
the criticisms of the human rights organisations and of the
so-called mainstream press. Here it would be fitting to
recall the story of the father and son who, because they
paid attention to every criticism that people they passed on
the road uttered, ended up carrying their donkey on their
shoulders.
Whatever
happened to the opposition’s ideas ?
A
Third Point: A little bit of
politics now. The MMM has decided to campaign against the
recent budget passed by Parliament. The MMM is the main
political opposition to the government and it is expected
that it will criticize the budget and at the same time it is
expected that it will tell us what it proposes to do when it
forms the government, which means that it must propose an
alternative budget or at least the main points of its budget
proposals.
I
have two observations to make on this exercise of the MMM.
The
first is that the MMM did not say much when the budget
speech was
being debated. That was the time when all the ideas of the
government were being debated and criticized and alternative
measures were supposed to be proposed. But there was nothing
worthwhile in the form of constructive criticism then nor
were any credible alternative measures proposed. So if
nothing concrete came out of the debates, we are entitled to
know why the MMM is now planning to tell the public what it
thinks of the budget?
Either
it did not have any worthwhile ideas to tell before our
Parliament or it was knocked down by the positive measures
in the budget. All politicians, especially the members
of Parliament, should know that political ideas must first
and foremost be raised in the proper forum, that is
Parliament. And here we have the MMM, a party with a long
history, with a number of experienced politicians, not
telling Parliament what it really thinks of the budget and
what it proposes instead. The MMM has chosen another forum
where its ideas cannot be debated.
I
feel that the people have to know whether the MMM is really
concerned with the direction that our national economy
should take. It seems that it is simply waiting for the
situation to take the direction of complete failure or that
the proposals of the government would not bring the awaited
success, it is only then that the MMM and its allies can
make any political headway.
And
the second observation is that it is necessary for us to
know what the MMM is proposing. Does the MMM agree that the
revenue of government has gone up as the minister
of Finance says? Could the MMM have done better, and that by
how much and how? How would it have shared the wealth so
created? Remember that it is very easy to share wealth
created by others. How would it have started the eradication
of poverty programme when it did not do anything worthwhile
for this very poor group of people? Why was its economic
policy a failure whereas the policy of the present
government is a relative success, in spite of the very
difficult economic situation?
We
have two blocs facing each other. The Labour Party together
with its allies, the PMXD, the MMSD, and the MR, forming the
government. The MMM, the Union Nationale, the PMSD, the MMSM
forming the opposition. And then we have the MSM. It is in
the opposition as well, but is it with the MMM? Both the MMM
and the MSM are repeatedly saying that each wants the other
to be in an alliance but their behaviour shows something
else. Each of the two parties has been saying that the other
is the weaker party and therefore it has to accept the
dictates of the stronger party. We are waiting to know which
is the weaker party, that is when it will accept the
candidate for prime ministership for the next general
election from the stronger party?
We
know that sooner or later, the MMM and the MSM are bound to
form their coalition because they know that separately they
will never dare fight the next general election. Their
principle is that they must form the next government
whatever their feelings for each other, whatever be their
differences. They have said so many things against each
other, but who cares for what people think? Provided they
get back into power, is it not?
We,
the people of Mauritius, are inextricably locked in the
horns of a huge political dilemma. On the one hand there is
the pursuit of short-term goals aimed at scoring cheap
political points and on the other there is the making of the
necessary sacrifices to rebuild the economy of the nation in
order to generate employment and wealth. You first produce
wealth, then you share it. Contrariwise, you can produce
misery and share it equally. It depends on what the majority
of Mauritians want.
LEX
|
