| | Les deux Ile Maurice | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Nazim Esoof
On 08/10/2009 |
Ces derniers temps, toutes les actions et discours de nos dirigeants sont interprétés et analysés en fonction de leurs contenus et connotations sectaires.
Il y a, à différents moments de notre histoire, de telles saillies communales. Mais il est déroutant et déconcertant comment le phénomène s’amplifie et s’intensifie malgré le passage du temps. On aurait parié sur l’inverse. Comment expliquer ce retour en arrière?
Le modèle mauricien, il faut l’admettre, a toujours reposé sur une juxtaposition des communautés. L’Etat est loin d’être séculier. La nation mauricienne est, en ce sens, un assemblage des communautés. Nous parlons toujours de «sections» ou de «segments» de la population. Un euphémisme pour ne pas utiliser le terme plus de direct de communauté.
Le jeu a aussi une dimension sémantique. «Communauté» tient pour «ethnie». Ce dernier terme n’étant pas utilisé, ayant un sens plutôt négatif à Maurice.
La société s’est ainsi construite selon ce schéma. «L’unité dans la diversité» consacrant le principe de juxtaposition des communautés et imposant la primauté de la communauté au détriment de la nation. Dans cette perspective, la République, il ne faut pas s’en étonner, est un faisceau dépouillé de sens. Le droit à la différence accordé à chaque communauté aboutit évidemment à une différence des droits.
Aujourd’hui, alors qu’on approche les élections législatives et si l’échiquier politique demeure tel qu’il est avec quelques variantes, nous nous acheminons à une coupure du pays en deux parties. Ce n’est pas, comme certains ont tendance à le croire, une majorité ethnique contre des minorités, mais une confrontation entre ceux qui optent pour le statu quo sur le plan conceptuel de l’aventure identitaire et ceux qui croient dans la dynamique du mouvement qui doit caractériser toute société.
Si nos politiques savent s’adresser aux premiers, surtout lorsqu’ils parlent «des spécificité et des réalités de la société mauricienne», ils sont en déphasage total avec les seconds. Soit ceux qui ont une autre ambition pour leur pays et pour le citoyen mauricien qu’ils sont.
Ces deux Ile Maurice s’affrontent ces dernières années. La victoire revient systématiquement à la première, non pas parce qu’elle est plus importante en nombre, mais parce qu’elle récupère irrémédiablement les blasés et les frustrés de la seconde. Celle-ci est composée de citoyens en attente d’un discours neuf et d’un projet de société en rupture avec les irrédentismes sectaires.
Entre-temps, le triomphalisme de la médiocrité est une réelle provocation aux forces du mouvement… | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eric | | | How did that come about? The indian immigration to work as labourers in the sugar plantation changed the fabric of the country, but the same happened to Fiji yet the gap between the indigenous Fijian is 7% whereas the gap between the Creoles(if they can be use as indegenous) and the indo Mauritian is 41%. Could the mass emigration after the independence have caused the "deux ile Maurice"? | | | jimmy | | | A maurice la source des ces differend se trouver qu le pays est diriger pars des dynastie qui ne fait que perduere le regime ou idees de papa.recent exemple avec le PMSD, on recupere les meme idess et aussi les meme votous qui faitasit partie de PMSD antan.deuxieme probleme c est les london bouy qui fait nous refiler les idees, policy de London.donc une facon des diviser les gens dans des caisiers avec des quotas ou on a a les parisian boys qui nous ressasse les droit de greve ou fractures sociales.Mais les pôlicy ne part de constat de ile;troisieme categorie les familles qui dirige maurice eux ils sont la pour le trading cest tout.aussi longtemps que nous ne debaresseros de ces parasites et reclamons notre independance, on aura les cut and paste from London.navin il se prend pour un Lord il passe christmas a London comme un gouveneur coloniale.On est une colonie avec des leaders soi disant mauricien qui vit soit a lONdon ou a paris dans leur tete. | | | FROM:OASIS | | | From:OASIS.
«L’unité dans la diversité»
Nous nous acheminons à une coupure du pays en deux parties. Mauritius: the strength and unity of Mauritius lies in its peoples. There is a need to understand that a people's aspiration for equality and freedom is an energy which is in many ways more potent than that contained in a nuclear bomb. There is a need to understand that a people's aspiration for equality and freedom is energy. Every nation has its own self-respect, its own greatness. So, just learn how to live together and respect each other. Just learn to mingle peacefully. Without the name of Mauritius- the various people of Mauritius as different "nations" would not be entitled to national self determination. The unity of Mauritius will not come from the efforts of "minds bred on textbooks” that unity will be built only on the foundation of “patriotism". It was Mark Twain who once remarked that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated. Nevertheless, the challenge that Mauritius continues to face (with increasing urgency) is the task of telescoping two different processes which are at work. We live in the 21st century, at a time when the increasing inter-dependence of states has led to the growth of regional economic and political communities. The same states who warred with each other in Europe to assert their separate interests, have felt the need to pool their sovereignty within the framework of a larger European Community. In Mauritius- true inter-dependence will come only between those who are independent. Too often we emphasise One Nation concept only when meeting foreigners and travelling overseas. To be united due to outside pressure and to unite through mutual regard are not the same. Just as there is a difference between the getting together of five convicts in a jail and between five free men, so the political union of the various groups of Mauritius and tomorrow's link between the peoples of a free country will be very different. Mauritian patriotism will then be built on the foundation of ingrained patriotism, not just in words but in reality. A stable unity will emerge only when Establishment acquires the vision and the strength to structure a polity where the different peoples may freely associate with each other in equality and in freedom. The price of failure will be the disintegration of the Mauritian state because, in the years ahead, the political awakening of the different peoples of Mauritius will continue to gather momentum - and this will be unstoppable. If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people and for the people, then it also means that no one people may impose their rule on another. It is this appeal to democracy which has given national movements their enduring appeal. If the disintegration of Mauritius comes, it may come with the same seeming suddenness of the collapse of the centralised Soviet state - because the seeds of disintegration have had several decades to germinate, underground and in fertile soil. It will come because of the failure to learn the lessons of the two world wars - lessons which led to the formation of the European Union. It will come because of a failure to understand the underlying reasons which contributed to the break up of the Soviet Union - a break up, which showed, Gorbachov (amongst others) that too little too late was not enough. The real political question is not one of separation or division but one of determining the terms on which different nations may 'associate' with one another in equality and in freedom - and this is the issue that the 21st century will have to confront. The clash between the ever-increasing clamour of claims to nationhood and aspirations to sovereignty, on the one hand. and the persistence, indeed consolidation, of visions of a monolithic, unitarian, and indivisible community, on the other, certainly represents one of the most striking contradictions, and one of the most fundamental moral and ideological conflicts, of our times. All common sense individual recognise that our future lies with the peoples of the country and the path of a greater and a larger Mauritian union is the direction of that future. The break up of Mauritius, if it comes, will not come from the efforts of ground based thoughtful .It will come despite their efforts. It will come from a failure of political leaders in Mauritius to openly recognise that Mauritius is a multi national state - and recognise the enduring wisdom of these words
"...It is not a bad thing to try and weld many into one but to jumble them all up is dangerous, because the only way we can do that is by force. If you say that this does not apply to Mauritius, the reply is that if self determination is not suited to us, then it is not suited at all to Europe. No people in Europe are as different, one from another, as our people. There is not that much difference between England and Holland as there is between Port-louis and Carro Kalyptus. Even France and Germany are not that far apart. If some of our politicians shudder at the mention of national patriotism, it is because their beliefs smack of narrow national selfishness."
In the economy front- the obsession with per Capita Income for Mauritius is myopic. Those concerned to secure the unity of Mauritius will need to adopt a more 'principle centred' approach. Those truly concerned to secure the unity of India may need to attend more seriously to the words of Julius Nyerere, an ex President of Tanzania and one of Africa's most respected elder statesperson, in an interview reported in the New Internationalist, January/February 1999:
"It seems that independence of the former colonies has suited the interests of the industrial world for bigger profits at less cost. Independence made it cheaper for them to exploit us. We became neo-colonies. ... The majority of countries in Africa and the rest of the South are hamstrung by debt, by the IMF. We have too much debt now. It is a heavy burden, a trap. It is debilitating. We must have a new chance. If we doubled our production and debt-servicing capabilities we would still have no money for anything extra like education or development. It is immoral. It is an affront. The conditions and policies of the World Bank and the IMF are to enable countries to pay debt, not to develop. That is all! Let us argue the moral case. Let us create a new liberation movement to free us from immoral debt and neo colonialism. This is one way forward. The other way is through Pan-African unity... Kwame Nkrumah and I were committed to the idea of unity... I did not believe in these small little nations. Still today I do not believe in them. I tell our people to look at the European Union, at these people who ruled us who are now uniting...." For Mauritius-
It is a union that will reflect the compelling and inevitable need for a common market and a common defence and will be rooted in the common heritage that we share with each and every citizen. It is a shared heritage that we freely acknowledge and it is a shared heritage to which we have contributed and from which we derive strength..."
And the words of Mahatma Gandhi may well continue to inform our actions:
"Whatever you do will be insignificant,
but it is very important that you do it."
| | | zapata | | | Nazim pas blier ki nou dans Maurice et croire moi ZAMAIS pas pou ena aucaine avancement dans ça pauvre pays la. Mauricien ene peuple ki comprend ziss pou 5 minute crono. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|