The Paradox of Victory: High Win, Low Participation in Municipal Polls

Opinion

By Jan Arden

The municipal elections gave their verdict on Sunday 4th of May, after the Electoral Commission’s smooth organisation of same day counting, and it came as no surprise that after their 60-0 triumphant win of last November, the Alliance du Changement sailed through with a comfortable result of 117-3 councillors. One would assume that the four-party Alliance has already worked out the allocation of mayoral portfolios, so the stage is set for Councils, Mayors and their administrative support staff to start chopping through the deadwood left behind by their predecessors, after the hijacking of municipal elections for ten long years.

Despite that scandalous disrespect and the opportunity to express their opinions and choices, some might have been dismayed by the low turn-out at polling stations in our capital city and four other towns: only some 27% bothered to exercise their civic duty, one of the lowest in our short history. Each one of us will have our own reading of that surprising level of abstention and analysts have done their own decipherment in the press and on the airwaves

Clearly, with the former Prime Minister, his MSM party, and their urban allies (Obeegadoo in Curepipe, Ramano in Quatre-Bornes, Collendavelloo in Rose-Hill…) having conceded defeat, there was no one to defend what they had pompously presented six months prior as their key municipal achievements, primarily the metro line for commuters. It’s obviously harder for the Alliance du Changement to attack a deflated argument, which likely contributed to a general sense of disaffection in what was perceived as a one-sided contest, with no disrespect intended towards the tireless campaigners from smaller parties or independent candidates.

But was there more? probed the analysts who are obviously game for analysis and speculation about what’s behind the obvious. It was true that, despite a promised broader reform of regional government — still in the pipeline or on the drawing boards — last Sunday’s polling was conducted under the same municipal governing law as before, and this should not have inherently caused popular disaffection.

Some have argued that the Alliance’s messaging about a forthcoming tough budget or fiscal and economic discipline — however necessary given previous egregious financial mismanagement and our near-junk rating with Moody’s — might have dampened the enthusiasm of ordinary townsfolk. Others suggested that several Alliance promises made during the intense campaign, particularly those impacting everyday finances and livelihoods (free internet, no MBC-TV license fees, lower food prices, reduced fuel costs or VAT, for instance), had yet to materialize in their daily lives.

In essence, the Alliance was perceived as having over-promised and under-delivered on their more mundane, yet important, needs. Of course, the Alliance’s response — that they discovered, upon assuming office, the alarming reality of the economy, the pervasive corruption, the gaping holes in public service pension funds, and the corrupt deals worth billions — has merit. So does the fact that, in the all-out ‘freebies’ competition of the last elections, at least one side, the MSM and its allies, was privy to the true economic state of our debt-ridden economy yet continued to make extravagant promises, even to unborn children of the Republic.

However, that messaging cannot be confined to the Tuesday Parliament sessions of Questions to the Prime Minister, which merely set the stage. The Alliance appears to lack a strategic Communications Director capable of coordinating individual press attachés and other government resources for a more effective dissemination of the Alliance’s responses to an electorate that voted overwhelmingly for Change and is seeking reassurance and relief, not necessarily cold logic and rationality. Furthermore, while the public is informed about the previous regime’s malfeasance and corrupt practices through the heavily publicized FCC enquiries, none of the alleged wrongdoers have yet reached the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) stage, let alone trial and conviction.

Are our investigating teams sufficiently focused? Should they prioritize the swift completion of simpler cases — the low-hanging fruits? Do they possess the full resources necessary for the intricate financial audit trails and inquiries that modern high-level fraudsters warrant? Are we fully leveraging Interpol notices and Mutual Legal Assistance schemes? These and many other questions are being asked by the public. Consequently, the risk of ‘burn-out’ and a desensitization to the complexities of ongoing inquiries is significant, especially as the current proceedings do not yet answer the public’s fundamental question: ‘Will you go full throttle to get our monies back and use them to alleviate our burdens?

Other analysts have also commented on the slow pace of changes and appointments within various parastatals and government agencies. This has created the impression, strongly voiced by Rajesh Bhagwan at the May 1st rally, that remnants of the previous MSM administration within several ministries are actively trying to maintain their “jobs for the boys” approach through various means. It is surely unacceptable that after six months, many agencies remain non-functional due to the absence of a CEO, Director-General, General Manager, or a functioning board to make or validate decisions.

Many loyal supporters of the Labour Party and MMM, who endured the brunt of MSM intolerance and quietly worked for the greater cause, are understandably frustrated and irritated by the sight of former MSM loyalists and their family or tribal appointees – individuals who benefitted for 5 to 10 years – now ingratiating themselves and offering daily praise to their new Minister. While we don’t need to name specific ministries, as most are likely under scrutiny, these situations can significantly damage the goodwill and hard-won outcomes.
Regarding the implementation of new visions and orientations, are these holdovers truly the individuals the Alliance du Changement needs or requires?

* * *

Europe’s Shifting Sands
Ukraine’s Precarious Position, UK-India Breakthrough, and German Uncertainty

While a considerable uncertainty hovers over the Russia-Ukraine conflict, in the absence of US support and only modest EU financial  assistance, it seems likely that Ukraine may be forced to give up Crimea and Russophone border areas, while entry to NATO would be forbidden, in order to secure some hope for a lasting peace in a conflict that has been dragging on for too long.

Elsewhere, in the UK-India trade negotiations that have been ongoing for some time, a historic breakthrough has been achieved, with the PM of India and UK announcing on Tuesday that both countries have completed their negotiations towards a Free Trade Agreement along with a Double Contribution Convention.

Following Brexit, the UK was eager to establish and deepen trade and economic ties with India, but a mutually beneficial FTA was quite ambitious in scope, which required three years of start-stop patient discussions on a multitude of aspects. Reuters announced that amongst other facets, the deal will allow UK firms to compete for Indian contracts while Indian professionals will be more free for work travel to the UK whatever the UK immigration restrictions being introduced.

Analysts predict this double agreement may double bilateral trade, currently at some $ 21 billion over the coming decade. After years of Tory dilly-dallying, Sir Keith Starmer must be commended for giving the decisive push, as he did for the Chagos issue. And not surprisingly, the British Chambers of Commerce enthusiastically welcomed the agreement, congratulating the two PMs for what would be « a huge boost to our economies and a welcome lift for our exporters ».

In parallel, India has been holding talks with EU for a similar FTA, the latest being a key meeting between the Indian Union Minister Piyush Goyal and EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefvovic in Brussels to smooth out the path to a positive conclusion before the end of the year 2025. 

Friedrich Merz’s path to becoming German Chancellor proved unexpectedly challenging. Despite leading a wide coalition, he failed to achieve the necessary majority in the first round of voting, needing a second ballot to succeed. The close call occurred against a backdrop of criticism from members of the Trump team, including Rubio and JD Vance, who controversially accused him of ‘reining in democracy.’ His eventual election was seen as vital to preventing political turmoil within Germany.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 9 May 2025