| | Wait and see | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Rabin BHUJUN
On 05/07/2009 |
Le Premier ministre l’a réaffirmévendredi soir. 2009 reste l’année de l’économie. Pour les élections générales, il faudra repasser en 2010. Navin Ramgoolam est peut-être convaincude ce qu’il avance. Toutefois, le patron rouge ne saurait nier que la politique est faite de vérités successives. C’est pour cette raison que nous pensons que son affirmation ne doit pas être perçue comme parole d’évangile. Ramgoolam et ses conseillers guettent. Le Premier ministre dissoudra l’Assemblée nationale s’il est convaincu de remporter des élections générales organisées d’ici décembre. En attendant de prendre cette décision, Ramgoolam poursuit une stratégie cohérente.
Les sondages favorables ne sont qu’un élément du puzzle politique. Aussi, le Premier ministre ne semble pas accorder d’importance démesurée à cette photographie de sa popularité… et de la débandade de l’opposition. C’est une question de positionnement. Politiquement, Ramgoolam se doit d’asseoir davantage sa marque – celui d’un homme au dessus de la mêlée. Qui gouverne, fait avancer ses projets gouvernementaux et redresse l’économie. Tandis, qu’en face, l’opposition divisée est réduite au rôle de vulgaire prétendant au pouvoir. Cet espace lui permet de se donner du temps pour faire autre chose. C’est pour cet « autre chose » que Dan Callikan a été appelé à la télévision nationale. Ramgoolam rentre dans une phase cruciale de son mandat. Celle où il lui faut établir et défendre le bilan du gouvernement. Or, la télé maladroite et propagandiste de Bijaye Madhou avait complètement brouillé le message. L’accent démesuré accordé aux ministres avait non seulement écoeuré l’essentiel des téléspectateurs mais aussi relégué au second plan l’action d’ensemble de
l’équipe de Ramgoolam. Du coup, ce n’est pas par hasard qu’à la MBC on dit rentrer dans la période « Put projects first, not ministers first. »
Ramgoolam réalise là l’importance de pallier une faiblesse fondamentale de son gouvernement : le manque de ministres compétents et charismatiques. En effet, en dehors des Duval, Sithanen, Boolell… peut-être Valayden, le gouvernement Ramgoolam ne recèle que peu de monde pouvant défendre leurs dossiers et bilans avec verve. Amener des Gowressoo, Tang, Dulull ou Hookoom à faire la même chose aurait pris trop de temps. C’est donc à la MBC qu’il échoit désormais – non plus de diffuser les va-et-vient des ministres – mais d’expliquer, enfin, ce qu’ils font concrètement à l’échelle régionale et nationale.
Pour être efficace, cet exercice de communication doit pouvoir s’étaler sur plusieurs mois. Il sera aussi probablement jalonné de départs de quelques personnalités controversées qui sévissent en ce moment même à la tête de plusieurs institutions publiques. C’est un plan global qui obéit à un impératif simple : montrer que le gouvernement travaille, prend des décisions courageuses tout en fournissant régulièrement des preuves tangibles de son bilan. Pendant que Ramgoolam vaquera à ces occupations-là, il sera grandement aidé par l’opposition léthargique. Le MSM continuera à rêver de retrouver le pouvoir à la faveur d’une alliance avec le PTr. Tandis que le MMM, dans un ultime baroud d’honneur, maintiendra son cap vers la bataille à trois qu’il souhaite.
A moins que… les vérités de juillet 2009 changent drastiquement. Que le MSM et le MMM amorcent un rapprochement fulgurant. Que la situation économique se détériore considérablement et fasse perdre à Ramgoolam et son équipe cette aura qui aura été patiemment concoctée par Callikan et sa télévision. A moins enfin que
Ramgoolam fasse mentir sa réputation d’attentiste maladif en décidant pour une fois de ne plus laisser traîner les choses. Et d’organiser les élections dès fin 2009 sur des bases connues, plutôt que de tirer des plans sur une comète politique dont la trajectoire n’est jamais vraiment prévisible.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| from Cavendish | | |
From CAVENDISH.
« Put projects first, not ministers first. »
Wait and see.
The numbers tell their own story. An electorate from a population of 1, 5 million will vote choosing between candidates from 12 to 15 political parties including three national parties and a plethora of smaller parties. The Mauritian Premier League - a glitzy football tournament that symbolises the optimistic and confident mood of this football-mad country – will be taking place. Democracy squared up to football, the national passion, and won. But while the scale of Mauritian democracy is gargantuan, so too are the problems of security, development and governance that Mauritius 'next Government will have to address. Mauritius's economic success story of recent years may also be tarred by the global economic meltdown. The blunder lies in the profess denial of the adverse impact on the republic economy by those at the helm. The finance minister had insisted that Mauritius, with his reforms would emerge relatively unscathed from the recession. While many economic and social indicators have shown signs of steady improvement in recent years, rates of poverty, malnutrition, disease and illiteracy remain depressingly high. A booming middle class cannot mask Mauritius's glaring inequalities of wealth and lifestyle, chasms made all the more unbridgeable by endemic corruption and bureaucratic indifference. Though there are signs that the traditionally apathetic Mauritian middle classes may be more energised and engaged this year than in previous elections, it is disproportionately the poor of Mauritius who vote, the poor who queue for hours at polling stations in the sweltering summer heat, who take part in radio debate, who carry banner in march protest, in trade union rally, who walk to have a say in how their country is run. What do they have to choose from within the blizzard of Mauritius's political parties and agendas? And what should outsiders pay attention to, beyond the Prime Minister platitudes, as the "world's smallest democracy" heads to the polls? It is a testament to the vibrancy and the chaos of democratic politics in Mauritius that neither the two main political parties will be able to form the next government without the support of other parties of varying shape and character. The message is clear. The two giants of Mauritian politics will have to increasingly accommodate other agendas and interests in building a workable majority in parliament. Coalition politics is now the modus operandi. The endless negotiation and politicking required in holding these governments together is seen by some as healthy for Mauritian democracy. The horse-trading in political headquarters may look criminally inefficient and venal. But seen from within, it is part of the organic, incremental evolution of Mauritius's political system, one that is still striving to better govern, through the ballot box, a country of incomparable cultural diversity and lobbyists arm twisting and wrangles. At the same time, coalition politics by its very nature militates against decisive action at the Centre. What a ruling party gains in power from the support of its coalition members, it loses in its ability to shape a firm, coherent national policy without the consent of its jockeying allies. The next government will invariably face similar complications as it attempts to advance policy initiatives while preserving the delicate political balance on which its power rests. That this balance relies in large part on parties with narrow, identity-based agendas is a cause for concern for many Mauritians. The shrewd analyst insists that coalition politics of the current brand make it impossible for governments to coherently tackle major issues like education, economic development & healthcare and foreign policy. What Mauritius is the emergence of a new party that cuts across national and identity-based lines, and represents the aspirations of the country's growing middle class and other classes? There is the most disturbing posture in the voters minds to gear their lives upon party political campaigns with robust messages for “BLOCK VOTES” meaning giving ticks to 3 candidates of same party, building the agenda for family life for next five years, listening to the blaring incompetence’s of party adversaries, then being uninvited recipient of a united political parties with those very same opposed groups –joining to form the next Government.
Part of the reason that Mauritius's middle classes don't vote in great numbers is because they find the array of parties and candidates before them uninspiring (of course, turnout is also low amongst the urban educated because apathy is high). A number of professionals from other spheres – accountants, business professionals, writers, company captains, medical and educational personalities and so forth - may have to enter the fray this year, challenging the typical, careerist politicians in their constituencies. Mauritian democracy can only benefit from their engagement, and from the greater engagement of all its citizens. MAURITIAN POLITICS AND THE INTERNET. The web will force politicians to be open. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama launched their bids for the most powerful position in the world, they did so not amid cheering crowds or with balloons pouring from the ceiling, but in a manner inconceivable a few years ago: they released videos on their websites. What's going on in America has a lot to do with their particular system, with its constant electioneering and greater tendency towards philanthropy. But it also has a lot to do with the internet. In Mauritius- many politicians don't quite get the web, either maintaining a polite distance (particularly when they read the vituperative comments appended to blogs and news articles) or ignoring it completely. Regularly participants are lamenting the atomisation and disengagement that pervade Mauritius society, there may be gentle bafflement when I point out that our Facebook accounts were a great way of keeping up our links with others. In Britain- The result of conversation was Politics, Policy and the Internet, a study published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. The aim was to explain just how the web is going to change the way politics is carried out and policy made. And the first thing to note is that, yes, there are problems with the internet. The result of that conversation was Politics, Policy and the Internet, a study published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. The internet is also surprisingly exclusive. It can be a wonderland for the young, the affluent and the time-rich, but even now, only 67 per cent of us have internet access. Half of those earning up to £10,400 have never been online; nor have 71 per cent of those aged 65 and over. The internet is also surprisingly exclusive. It can be a wonderland for the young, the affluent and the time-rich, but even now, only 67 per cent of us have internet access. Half of those earning up to £10,400 have never been online; nor have 71 per cent of those aged 65 and over. The Mauritius Labour Party adherents run messages on FACEBOOK. So far, the established political elites have failed to prepare for this new world; none of the political parties has seized the opportunities the web offers. Why should this matter? Because there are two things about the way the internet works that have genuinely revolutionary - and genuinely beneficial - consequences for politics. The first is the openness it enforces. No longer can a politician say different things to different audiences, or change his mind and forget to mention it: an archive of all his pronouncements will be available for all to see. Similarly, information about health, education or anything else is as available to the mother in her study as it is to the minister in his office in Government Office; and if she wants to say something about what she finds, it is easier than ever to make herself heard.
Then there is a more subtle effect: tone of voice. The internet privileges what Dave Winer, who has a strong claim to have been the first blogger, calls "the unedited voice of a single person". Those who thrive online are those who are the most informed, or wittiest, or rudest, or most honest - in other words, palpably human. The kind of deadening PR-speak employed by our politicians as they joust with a Humphrys or Paxman, or the sloganeering aimed at the television news ("Education, education, education"; "British jobs for British workers") and in that vein the Mauritius National Television oligopoly for Ministers and their daily routine menu- an ignominious display , or forwarding for next day important legislative debates reports or running commentary from the TV personnel instead of the elected representatives own speech delivery- is ill-suited to the online world: politicians must step off their pedestals and engage with the audience. There are, of course, many other ways in which the internet could improve how politics function: the prospect of collaborative, open-source policy-making; the reinvigoration of individual MPs through innovative online campaigning; the use of social networks such as Facebook or Bebo to unite people around causes and stimulate campaigning and philanthropy.These changes will not happen overnight: after all, it was decades after the invention of television that politicians like Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher emerged, who had an instinctive command of, and a political approach tailored towards, the medium. In other words, we are not going to hold binding online referendums on legislation any time soon, nor see Dr. Ramgoolam and Honourable Berenger forsake Prime Minister's Questions in order to fire vituperative emails at each other. But the internet age is coming - and the people who embrace it will have a decisive advantage over the dinosaurs who resist.
------------------
From CAVENDISH.
« Put projects first, not ministers first. »
Wait and see.
The numbers tell their own story. An electorate from a population of 1, 5 million will vote choosing between candidates from 12 to 15 political parties including three national parties and a plethora of smaller parties. The Mauritian Premier League - a glitzy football tournament that symbolises the optimistic and confident mood of this football-mad country – will be taking place. Democracy squared up to football, the national passion, and won. But while the scale of Mauritian democracy is gargantuan, so too are the problems of security, development and governance that Mauritius 'next Government will have to address. Mauritius's economic success story of recent years may also be tarred by the global economic meltdown. The blunder lies in the profess denial of the adverse impact on the republic economy by those at the helm. The finance minister had insisted that Mauritius, with his reforms would emerge relatively unscathed from the recession. While many economic and social indicators have shown signs of steady improvement in recent years, rates of poverty, malnutrition, disease and illiteracy remain depressingly high. A booming middle class cannot mask Mauritius's glaring inequalities of wealth and lifestyle, chasms made all the more unbridgeable by endemic corruption and bureaucratic indifference. Though there are signs that the traditionally apathetic Mauritian middle classes may be more energised and engaged this year than in previous elections, it is disproportionately the poor of Mauritius who vote, the poor who queue for hours at polling stations in the sweltering summer heat, who take part in radio debate, who carry banner in march protest, in trade union rally, who walk to have a say in how their country is run. What do they have to choose from within the blizzard of Mauritius's political parties and agendas? And what should outsiders pay attention to, beyond the Prime Minister platitudes, as the "world's smallest democracy" heads to the polls? It is a testament to the vibrancy and the chaos of democratic politics in Mauritius that neither the two main political parties will be able to form the next government without the support of other parties of varying shape and character. The message is clear. The two giants of Mauritian politics will have to increasingly accommodate other agendas and interests in building a workable majority in parliament. Coalition politics is now the modus operandi. The endless negotiation and politicking required in holding these governments together is seen by some as healthy for Mauritian democracy. The horse-trading in political headquarters may look criminally inefficient and venal. But seen from within, it is part of the organic, incremental evolution of Mauritius's political system, one that is still striving to better govern, through the ballot box, a country of incomparable cultural diversity and lobbyists arm twisting and wrangles. At the same time, coalition politics by its very nature militates against decisive action at the Centre. What a ruling party gains in power from the support of its coalition members, it loses in its ability to shape a firm, coherent national policy without the consent of its jockeying allies. The next government will invariably face similar complications as it attempts to advance policy initiatives while preserving the delicate political balance on which its power rests. That this balance relies in large part on parties with narrow, identity-based agendas is a cause for concern for many Mauritians. The shrewd analyst insists that coalition politics of the current brand make it impossible for governments to coherently tackle major issues like education, economic development & healthcare and foreign policy. What Mauritius is the emergence of a new party that cuts across national and identity-based lines, and represents the aspirations of the country's growing middle class and other classes? There is the most disturbing posture in the voters minds to gear their lives upon party political campaigns with robust messages for “BLOCK VOTES” meaning giving ticks to 3 candidates of same party, building the agenda for family life for next five years, listening to the blaring incompetence’s of party adversaries, then being uninvited recipient of a united political parties with those very same opposed groups –joining to form the next Government.
Part of the reason that Mauritius's middle classes don't vote in great numbers is because they find the array of parties and candidates before them uninspiring (of course, turnout is also low amongst the urban educated because apathy is high). A number of professionals from other spheres – accountants, business professionals, writers, company captains, medical and educational personalities and so forth - may have to enter the fray this year, challenging the typical, careerist politicians in their constituencies. Mauritian democracy can only benefit from their engagement, and from the greater engagement of all its citizens. MAURITIAN POLITICS AND THE INTERNET. The web will force politicians to be open. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama launched their bids for the most powerful position in the world, they did so not amid cheering crowds or with balloons pouring from the ceiling, but in a manner inconceivable a few years ago: they released videos on their websites. What's going on in America has a lot to do with their particular system, with its constant electioneering and greater tendency towards philanthropy. But it also has a lot to do with the internet. In Mauritius- many politicians don't quite get the web, either maintaining a polite distance (particularly when they read the vituperative comments appended to blogs and news articles) or ignoring it completely. Regularly participants are lamenting the atomisation and disengagement that pervade Mauritius society, there may be gentle bafflement when I point out that our Facebook accounts were a great way of keeping up our links with others. In Britain- The result of conversation was Politics, Policy and the Internet, a study published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. The aim was to explain just how the web is going to change the way politics is carried out and policy made. And the first thing to note is that, yes, there are problems with the internet. The result of that conversation was Politics, Policy and the Internet, a study published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. The internet is also surprisingly exclusive. It can be a wonderland for the young, the affluent and the time-rich, but even now, only 67 per cent of us have internet access. Half of those earning up to £10,400 have never been online; nor have 71 per cent of those aged 65 and over. The internet is also surprisingly exclusive. It can be a wonderland for the young, the affluent and the time-rich, but even now, only 67 per cent of us have internet access. Half of those earning up to £10,400 have never been online; nor have 71 per cent of those aged 65 and over. The Mauritius Labour Party adherents run messages on FACEBOOK. So far, the established political elites have failed to prepare for this new world; none of the political parties has seized the opportunities the web offers. Why should this matter? Because there are two things about the way the internet works that have genuinely revolutionary - and genuinely beneficial - consequences for politics. The first is the openness it enforces. No longer can a politician say different things to different audiences, or change his mind and forget to mention it: an archive of all his pronouncements will be available for all to see. Similarly, information about health, education or anything else is as available to the mother in her study as it is to the minister in his office in Government Office; and if she wants to say something about what she finds, it is easier than ever to make herself heard.
Then there is a more subtle effect: tone of voice. The internet privileges what Dave Winer, who has a strong claim to have been the first blogger, calls "the unedited voice of a single person". Those who thrive online are those who are the most informed, or wittiest, or rudest, or most honest - in other words, palpably human. The kind of deadening PR-speak employed by our politicians as they joust with a Humphrys or Paxman, or the sloganeering aimed at the television news ("Education, education, education"; "British jobs for British workers") and in that vein the Mauritius National Television oligopoly for Ministers and their daily routine menu- an ignominious display , or forwarding for next day important legislative debates reports or running commentary from the TV personnel instead of the elected representatives own speech delivery- is ill-suited to the online world: politicians must step off their pedestals and engage with the audience. There are, of course, many other ways in which the internet could improve how politics function: the prospect of collaborative, open-source policy-making; the reinvigoration of individual MPs through innovative online campaigning; the use of social networks such as Facebook or Bebo to unite people around causes and stimulate campaigning and philanthropy.These changes will not happen overnight: after all, it was decades after the invention of television that politicians like Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher emerged, who had an instinctive command of, and a political approach tailored towards, the medium. In other words, we are not going to hold binding online referendums on legislation any time soon, nor see Dr. Ramgoolam and Honourable Berenger forsake Prime Minister's Questions in order to fire vituperative emails at each other. But the internet age is coming - and the people who embrace it will have a decisive advantage over the dinosaurs who resist.
------------------
From CAVENDISH.
« Put projects first, not ministers first. »
Wait and see.
The numbers tell their own story. An electorate from a population of 1, 5 million will vote choosing between candidates from 12 to 15 political parties including three national parties and a plethora of smaller parties. The Mauritian Premier League - a glitzy football tournament that symbolises the optimistic and confident mood of this football-mad country – will be taking place. Democracy squared up to football, the national passion, and won. But while the scale of Mauritian democracy is gargantuan, so too are the problems of security, development and governance that Mauritius 'next Government will have to address. Mauritius's economic success story of recent years may also be tarred by the global economic meltdown. The blunder lies in the profess denial of the adverse impact on the republic economy by those at the helm. The finance minister had insisted that Mauritius, with his reforms would emerge relatively unscathed from the recession. While many economic and social indicators have shown signs of steady improvement in recent years, rates of poverty, malnutrition, disease and illiteracy remain depressingly high. A booming middle class cannot mask Mauritius's glaring inequalities of wealth and lifestyle, chasms made all the more unbridgeable by endemic corruption and bureaucratic indifference. Though there are signs that the traditionally apathetic Mauritian middle classes may be more energised and engaged this year than in previous elections, it is disproportionately the poor of Mauritius who vote, the poor who queue for hours at polling stations in the sweltering summer heat, who take part in radio debate, who carry banner in march protest, in trade union rally, who walk to have a say in how their country is run. What do they have to choose from within the blizzard of Mauritius's political parties and agendas? And what should outsiders pay attention to, beyond the Prime Minister platitudes, as the "world's smallest democracy" heads to the polls? It is a testament to the vibrancy and the chaos of democratic politics in Mauritius that neither the two main political parties will be able to form the next government without the support of other parties of varying shape and character. The message is clear. The two giants of Mauritian politics will have to increasingly accommodate other agendas and interests in building a workable majority in parliament. Coalition politics is now the modus operandi. The endless negotiation and politicking required in holding these governments together is seen by some as healthy for Mauritian democracy. The horse-trading in political headquarters may look criminally inefficient and venal. But seen from within, it is part of the organic, incremental evolution of Mauritius's political system, one that is still striving to better govern, through the ballot box, a country of incomparable cultural diversity and lobbyists arm twisting and wrangles. At the same time, coalition politics by its very nature militates against decisive action at the Centre. What a ruling party gains in power from the support of its coalition members, it loses in its ability to shape a firm, coherent national policy without the consent of its jockeying allies. The next government will invariably face similar complications as it attempts to advance policy initiatives while preserving the delicate political balance on which its power rests. That this balance relies in large part on parties with narrow, identity-based agendas is a cause for concern for many Mauritians. The shrewd analyst insists that coalition politics of the current brand make it impossible for governments to coherently tackle major issues like education, economic development & healthcare and foreign policy. What Mauritius is the emergence of a new party that cuts across national and identity-based lines, and represents the aspirations of the country's growing middle class and other classes? There is the most disturbing posture in the voters minds to gear their lives upon party political campaigns with robust messages for “BLOCK VOTES” meaning giving ticks to 3 candidates of same party, building the agenda for family life for next five years, listening to the blaring incompetence’s of party adversaries, then being uninvited recipient of a united political parties with those very same opposed groups –joining to form the next Government.
Part of the reason that Mauritius's middle classes don't vote in great numbers is because they find the array of parties and candidates before them uninspiring (of course, turnout is also low amongst the urban educated because apathy is high). A number of professionals from other spheres – accountants, business professionals, writers, company captains, medical and educational personalities and so forth - may have to enter the fray this year, challenging the typical, careerist politicians in their constituencies. Mauritian democracy can only benefit from their engagement, and from the greater engagement of all its citizens. MAURITIAN POLITICS AND THE INTERNET. The web will force politicians to be open. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama launched their bids for the most powerful position in the world, they did so not amid cheering crowds or with balloons pouring from the ceiling, but in a manner inconceivable a few years ago: they released videos on their websites. What's going on in America has a lot to do with their particular system, with its constant electioneering and greater tendency towards philanthropy. But it also has a lot to do with the internet. In Mauritius- many politicians don't quite get the web, either maintaining a polite distance (particularly when they read the vituperative comments appended to blogs and news articles) or ignoring it completely. Regularly participants are lamenting the atomisation and disengagement that pervade Mauritius society, there may be gentle bafflement when I point out that our Facebook accounts were a great way of keeping up our links with others. In Britain- The result of conversation was Politics, Policy and the Internet, a study published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. The aim was to explain just how the web is going to change the way politics is carried out and policy made. And the first thing to note is that, yes, there are problems with the internet. The result of that conversation was Politics, Policy and the Internet, a study published today by the Centre for Policy Studies. The internet is also surprisingly exclusive. It can be a wonderland for the young, the affluent and the time-rich, but even now, only 67 per cent of us have internet access. Half of those earning up to £10,400 have never been online; nor have 71 per cent of those aged 65 and over. The internet is also surprisingly exclusive. It can be a wonderland for the young, the affluent and the time-rich, but even now, only 67 per cent of us have internet access. Half of those earning up to £10,400 have never been online; nor have 71 per cent of those aged 65 and over. The Mauritius Labour Party adherents run messages on FACEBOOK. So far, the established political elites have failed to prepare for this new world; none of the political parties has seized the opportunities the web offers. Why should this matter? Because there are two things about the way the internet works that have genuinely revolutionary - and genuinely beneficial - consequences for politics. The first is the openness it enforces. No longer can a politician say different things to different audiences, or change his mind and forget to mention it: an archive of all his pronouncements will be available for all to see. Similarly, information about health, education or anything else is as available to the mother in her study as it is to the minister in his office in Government Office; and if she wants to say something about what she finds, it is easier than ever to make herself heard.
Then there is a more subtle effect: tone of voice. The internet privileges what Dave Winer, who has a strong claim to have been the first blogger, calls "the unedited voice of a single person". Those who thrive online are those who are the most informed, or wittiest, or rudest, or most honest - in other words, palpably human. The kind of deadening PR-speak employed by our politicians as they joust with a Humphrys or Paxman, or the sloganeering aimed at the television news ("Education, education, education"; "British jobs for British workers") and in that vein the Mauritius National Television oligopoly for Ministers and their daily routine menu- an ignominious display , or forwarding for next day important legislative debates reports or running commentary from the TV personnel instead of the elected representatives own speech delivery- is ill-suited to the online world: There are, of course, many other ways in which the internet could improve how politics function: the prospect of collaborative, open-source policy-making; the reinvigoration of individual MPs through innovative online campaigning; the use of social networks such as Facebook or Bebo to unite people around causes and stimulate campaigning and philanthropy.These changes will not happen overnight: after all, it was decades after the invention of television that politicians like Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher emerged, who had an instinctive command of, and a political approach tailored towards, the medium. In other words, we are not going to hold binding online referendums on legislation any time soon, nor see Dr. Ramgoolam and Honourable Berenger forsake Prime Minister's Questions in order to fire vituperative emails at each other. But the internet age is coming - and the people who embrace it will have a decisive advantage over the dinosaurs who resist.
------------------
From CAVENDISH.
| | | Bonhomme Dibois | | | Voici une analyse dont je m'associe tres aisement, Surtout le fait bien identifier que le Gouvernement Ramgoolam ne compte que Sithanen, Duval, Boolell et Valyden comme personage competent a leur Ministere. Que se passe -t-il donc. Ramgoolam est force' par son systeme Communaliste est force' a prendre des candidats fidelement religieux a la communaute' qui le soutienne et les ambitions subtilement cache' de cette Communaute'. Les competences de l'ancien Ministre de L'Education, de la Sante', des terres ont te testifie' partout a travers le monde comme imcompetence criminel pour des hommes d'Etat. Ramgoolam ne peut que les proteger car c'est tout qu'il possede comme soutien pour la cause du Ptr Ramgoolam. Boolell en es d'une autre education mais j'attends qu'il succombe au Communaliste Ptr s'il s'interesse a vancer sa carriere comme le fut un soi disant militant devenu travailliste et maintenenat sans clarte' de son role politique ou identite' protege par le Papa moins credible apres les elections au Numero 8. Notre Ile Maurice a besoin plus que jamais les competents et ceux qui ont une honnte' et credibilite'. Le SGD parlait d'une chambre Executive dans notre systeme Legislative Gouvernemental avec nos meileeus talents et non pas des personnel de la soi disant communaute' majoritaire. Le temps de changement electoral, de system executive du Gouvernement est tres necessaire . Ramgoolam n'a ni le courage ni la capacite' entourre' d'incompetents commmunal pour faire face a un monde global ou les qualites' de L'individu fait toute diffrence pour l'avancement de la Societe'. Notre Republique ne peut plus soutenir des imbeciles communal | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|