Monday, October 25, 2010

Mauritius Version 2.0

Mauritius was launched in 1968 as a repacked version of a robust and complex set of rules. As years went by Mauritius started to have a lot of bugs and the set of rules that it had at the beginning had to be used with service patches and other bug fixes which were put forward with each new generation of users. At times some viruses came up with new generation of users and the anti-virus packages became more and more heavy, but the viruses were never very offensive. At most their were some ad-wares promoting some private companies. Again, with the arrival of each set of new users, a thorough scan would take place and the operating system of Mauritius would go back online. 

However, time goes by and to anything, a new version comes to day. This is what is happening in Mauritius. A new version, a new set of rules, a new ideology, a new style, a new reign is about to begin But, as always, We are always behind, we are always late for everything. It can be very bad but in our case I will tell you why we should rejoice to be late in that matter. Beginning late, does not always bring undesirable effects. The proof is that we are still free to decide if we should or should not. 

I am talking about the debate for a 2nd republic for Mauritius. The idea comes from both the government and opposition. This is a quite rare situation which in itself should take up our attention. But, again, we do not have time for that. At least not for the moment. Mauritius has been independent since 1968 and since then, we did not have any problems with our democracy. We have a government and an opposition who can defend us, raise its voice, whenever the government is not achieving what is demanded by the population or to bring to the attention of the government certain issues. I would tend to say, to each and every action, there should be a reaction. The reaction part is the role of the opposition. Which brings us to the question why would the opposition agree to such a deal whereby it's power will decrease ? yes, the power of the opposition would inevitably decrease in a 2nd republic which they are asking the population to accept.

The election of the president in that case would be an easier job for the leader of the opposition who can count on around 43% of the population. Same for the prime minister in place. I am not saying it would get the leader of the opposition elected. But, with this kind of election and a large rate of  abstention,   he has more chance than with the current type of elections where he has to get more than 30 persons including himself to be elected. Furthermore, if the population elected the now prime minister to the post of president. The leader of opposition could with some coalitions win more seats at the national assembly than right now. This 2nd republic would thus be beneficial to both of them. This is the reason behind their mutual agreement why mauritius needs a 2nd republic. 
A 2nd republic would mean that the country would undergo a lot of changes in the constitution which would maybe need more time than 1st republic to be put into place. Since for the first one, we were just copying and pasting whatever is done in England and for this one it would be like starting from a half done puzzle.  More time for a stable country would also mean a greater risk of degradation of the law and order in the country. Taking as a reference what happened in the 70's, the workers union would soon come forward asking for their share which would lead the country to an economic crisis in not more than 2-3 years.

One more important point to consider with a President having all powers would the representation of the voice of the people which is the essence of any democracy. It is today hilarious to see the situation in France, which claims itself as being 'le pays des droits de l'homme'. Senate members will not be elected by the people. The president will not be participating in the debates at the national assembly, but only giving guidelines to the government. Thus, how are we to be better represented in that kind of republic ? As we have seen the past weeks in France where this type of republic is in place, the people have to do manifestations and go to the roads to be heard. Furthermore the french people have big workers' unions which is not the case in Mauritius.

Democracy should always involve measures in order to increase the voice of the people at the national assembly and that this voice is taken into consideration. With millions of persons on the roads in France, their voices can still be ignored by the president. We cannot take this chance in our fragile democracy. Mauritius needs more maturity and surely this kind of system will not work. We need a more elaborated and thought democratic system. I am not saying that ours is the best. But, It can be improved otherwise. 
With the nomination of the people at the head of top state companies by politicians, we cannot give them more power. Their should be equal opportunities for all Mauritians. We learned in l'express dimanche from R.bhujun that the Prime Ministers and top politicians as well as top government companies presidents' are in the free-masons which has been in France several times condemned for 'traffic d'influence'. The article has  not been published on the writer's blog nor on the L'express.mu website for unknown reasons!! . I will write about the "Free-masons, the fear of apocalypse." tomorrow, keep tuned.
Do you have an opinion on Mauritius 2nd republic ? Do you think Mauritius should give all powers to a President ?
Give your opinion below ! We are still in free state Mauritius for the time being !!



Bookmark and Share