Of 60-0 and Appeasement Politics

Past experience about the absolutist inclinations of a 60-0 or a 57-3 is surely a reminder to caution and guide us as election day approaches

By Dr R Neerunjun Gopee

We will either live together or die together.
– Dr S Radhakrishnan, former Philosopher-President of India

These are wise words worth keeping in mind by both our aspiring political leaders and voters in general.

It is common knowledge and part of our electoral campaign folklore that supporters of the contending parties are invariably to be found chatting to each other, exchanging light banter and sharing snacks, drinks and jokes. Their ‘bazes’ more often than not are only a short distance away from each other and it’s a similar kind of atmosphere that prevails around them.

On occasions some incidents and scuffles have taken place, especially as the end of the campaign draws near, involving some hot-headed candidates and supporters, even to the extent of creating a law and order situation. But fortunately, these have by and large been fairly rapidly contained and normalcy restored. Our hope is that as in the past once the elections are over and the results declared, the transition to the elected government will take place smoothly, and the government of the day gets on with the business of leading the country towards peace and prosperity for all.

This expectation is despite the reality that the politics of seeking power through general elections is not necessarily aligned with the concerns of the people, the high-sounding rhetoric notwithstanding. Except perhaps for a few, those who join politics do so more to gratify their own ambitions than to meet the expectations of the masses to whom they go begging for votes in exchange for pledges to be fulfilled.

Several years ago, writing about democracy in Africa, Nic Cheeseman, Professor of Democracy, University of Birmingham, outlined the ‘conditions necessary for countries to build a strong and stable democracy.’  He identified ‘a number of factors that most researchers would agree are probably important’ as follows:

‘A cohesive national identity is likely to make it easier to maintain national unity, while wealth and economic success have been found to promote political stability. A strong national infrastructure, underpinned by respect for the rule of law, means that the government is likely to be effective without being abusive. And a vibrant middle class and powerful civil society are usually seen as important to promote accountability and responsive government.’

Commenting about the challenges that African states faced, he noted that: ‘With the exception of Botswana, they are all diverse multi-ethnic societies in which the question of national identity has been problematic. In Ghana and Mauritius for instance, ethnic identities have historically played a role in structuring political networks. This increased the tension around elections…’ – something which, alas we are well aware of!

That is why our leaders must have a holistic vision for the country so as to be able to lay down strong foundations for and inspire the coming generations to share and pursue that vision.  Physical developments may make a country, but that’s not enough to make a nation, which should be an organic entity bound by shared values and goals. They therefore have a greater responsibility than the common citizen to not only emphasize the importance of living by these values but set the example by their own words and actions.

That is why, in light of Nic Cheeseman’s remarks about the tension caused by ethnic identities around election time in Mauritius, some further wise words of Dr S.  Radhakrishnan assume even greater resonance in these troubling times. Namely, that ‘enough men and women arise in each community who are free from the fanaticisms of race, religions and ideologies.’ 

These fanaticisms invariably create or deepen existing faultlines, and it is national interest that must have primacy over sectarian interests if we are to achieve national unity and cohesive national identity. All our leaders often invoke the Singapore model, one of political stability, economic prosperity and peaceful ethnic vivre-ensemble (in which it scores over its next-door neighbour Malaysia where often religio-sectarian considerations seem to have an upper hand) that we should emulate instead of merely alluding to rhetorically.

That is why we also expect our political leaders to always keep the national interest foremost in mind at all times, find the proper balance so that both national and sectoral interests and aspirations are safeguarded. If, instead, they are more inclined to yield to the pressures of vested and sectarian interests or to bend to political correctness or practise appeasement politics, to the extent of tweaking rules or enacting legislations, if need be, this puts at risk the soundness of the polity and the welfare of the population at large.

This is the enormous responsibility that awaits the country – to do what is right by the people by political leaders in whom they put their trust, almost blindly.  The question is: will the leaders live up to it?

What if they don’t? That is where transparency and accountability come in, and it is a norm that in a vibrant democracy this is the task of a strong and credible opposition. While there may be a general feeling and a call for 60-0 by the competing parties, past experience about the absolutist inclinations of a 60-0 or a 57-3 is surely a reminder to caution and guide us as election day approaches. There is also a current of opinion that is voicing this concern, which is no doubt a genuine and valid one.

Let us therefore vote wisely, with balanced judgement.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 8 November 2024