| | Le discours unitaire | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
|   | Par:- Nazim Esoof
On 04/11/2009 |
Ces derniers temps, les observateurs l’auront remarqué, nos politiques, à l’instar du Premier ministre, versent de plus en plus dans le discours unitaire. Il est de moins en moins question de «nou bann» et des «bann la».
Serait-ce un mouvement épisodique uniquement pour projeter une image de façade de rassembleur en prévision de prochaines élections législatives? Il faut espérer que ce ne soit pas le cas. Il faut espérer davantage que les discours sectaires ne vont pas surgir lors des fameuses réunions privées. Car, généralement, c’est ainsi que cela se passe.
Ce pays a véritablement besoin d’un souffle d’unité. Pas de cette «unité dans la diversité», qui n’est qu’une vitrine de vivre-ensemble pacifique qui cache une arrière-boutique de divisions, mais d’une cohésion collective autour de certaines valeurs républicaines. Les plus cyniques diront que ces valeurs sont inexistantes car la République n’est qu’un contenant sans contenu.
D’où aussi la nécessité de prêter une oreille à ceux et celles qui se posent la question de savoir s’il ne faut pas une IIe République?
Pour une véritable rupture avec des pratiques surannées, cette IIe République serait une bonne chose. Car, attendre que les mentalités évoluent avec le seul passage du temps, sans une intervention au niveau des superstructures sociales, peut se révéler une attente stérile.
Il y a, aujourd’hui, de nombreux défis qui nous attendent. La réforme des institutions et celle de l’Etat sont les plus à même de provoquer une évolution des mentalités. Elles sont plus aptes à faire en sorte que le discours sectaire ne pourrisse le débat.
Espérons donc que ce n’est pas qu’une simple accalmie avant la grande salve communale…
Nazim Esoof
n.esoof@lexpress.mu | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MoralScientist | | | Wait, now, Baltazar. Many have tried to ride on my back before and they have been thrown off into the gutter. You should not also try. I am anti-sectarian. I think everyone is adult enough to take care of himself or herself. He or she can be helped on a humanitarian basis for a limited period of time, but he or she will at no point be allowed to become parasitic. Gregoire had developed a parasitic strain: I have not taken a blood sample to be in a position to decide whether he is terminally affected. Those who have taken such blld sample will know; and they will decide whether Gregoire will be transferred to ICU or to the morgue. | | | pffff | | | hey guys plz i know u r very very intelligent but am not interested to read ur dissertations now. z shorter z better. after all, kan politichien ti changer pou zordi li changer mamao | | | Baltazar | | | Bonnes idées de Navin et Moral Scientist. MAIS si les partis et les groupes sociaux-culturel sont disposés à expulser les oeufs pourris de fanatiques comme l'a fait le Père Gregoire on verra changer les mentalités et une nouvelle république verra le jour. | | | Baltazar | | | Bonnes idées de Navin et Moral Scientist. MAIS si les partis et les groupes sociaux-culturel sont disposés à expulser les oeufs pourris de fanatiques comme l'a fait le Père Gregoire on verra changer les mentalités et une nouvelle république verra le jour. | | | LES MISERABLES | | | From: Les Miserables. / Lies, truth and politicians. Le discours unitaire. Serait-ce un mouvement épisodique uniquement pour projeter une image de façade de rassembleur en prévision de prochaines élections législatives? Definitely this is a selective marketing rebranding operation. This is only for “plaisir” to our ears. Do they really want the system to change? Britain- A recent forum in open Democracy discussed whether there should be a law against politicians lying. A BBC film is entitled The Ministry of Truth. The film shows a wonderful range of politicians confronted with a draft for a Bill that would make it illegal for them to lie, and their responses. The penalty, if found guilty: to be disqualified forthwith from holding public office. There was a lot of huffing, and puffing and saying that they didn't even "fib”. It made the point that there is a law against murder even though it is very rare. So why not a law against politicians lying? What really emerged as the programme unfolded is the way that British legislators regard themselves as a law unto themselves, accountable to no one else except - in a most distant sense - the voters, whom they do everything they can to manipulate. The idea that they should be answerable to the law was an anathema to them. As this became clear it changed my mind, we need this law! I don't think it addresses the central issue which it pretends to: of getting politicians to be truthful. What it does do is challenge the elitism of the political class. As in Britain, Mauritius sovereignty flows from the people in the Constitution. Our REPUBLIC is a constitutional one in which parliament is sovereign, power does not formally reside with the people. However intentionally or not, brilliant is revealed the contortions MPs have to go through to link this brute fact to the democratic norms on which their legitimacy is based. Today’s politicians necessarily have to pay lip service to popular sovereignty as parliamentary sovereignty is practically if not formally parasitic upon it. Yet they are understandably reluctant to put this on a constitutional footing – which would, rightly in my view, constrain the discretion they have over the democratic process and the means by which they are held to account. It is blatantly clear that outside of elections people have minimal control over a self-regulating political class. The idea of using criminal law to prosecute MPs was to my mind a brilliant ruse for highlighting the self-serving way in which popular sovereignty is used and abused by politicians. Can we reflect upon the premise the 'misrepresentation of the people' bill. But I think it is incredibly naive to think this would be a tool which the public could use to hold politicians to account: it would be a tool for politicians to bash each other over the head with. A Misrepresentation of the People Act would catch out bad liars (who the system tends to catch out anyway) and exonerate the good ones. And what do you do about all those politicians who have an uncanny knack of believing 100% of what they say? How do you regulate against that? I say we need a truthful politics which also needs a truthful National television Corporation. Call for the public's idea for how we change politics- A key part of this is having an open and intelligent debate on the kind of democracy we want - the very thing the political class is so keen to deny us. We need to get away from the idea that politics is a specialised class of activity to be carried out by a full-time class of professional politicians. Organising politics, as we have the rest of the society, according to "division of labour" principles has produced a detached class of decision-makers more responsive to the interests of the elite of which they're a part than the needs of ordinary people. It's time to break the elite's grip on politics and assume some responsibility for the decisions that affect our lives. I don't agree with the idea that politics is too complicated for ordinary people. In fact I think society will benefit hugely from drawing on the wisdom and creativity of the Mauritian people - much better than depending on the sterile thinking of that peculiar and unrepresentative bunch of people who want to become MPs. Parliamentary forums that involve the public in law-making will be a big step in the right direction. Let's give them a go. | | | navin | | | The truth Mr ESSOOF IS THAT THE SAME ACTORS,WHO LIKE RAMGOOLAM,WHO SINGS OPENLY THE THEME OF UNITY TO THE PUBLIC AND FOR EVERYONE TO SEE,GO BEHIND THE SCENE AND UNDERMINE UNASHANEDLY THE UNITY THEME.THE REAL QUESTION WILL BE TO ASK HOW GULLIBLE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN BE. THE SUGGESTION FOR A SECOND REPUBLIC MAYBE A PLAUSIBLE ONE.WHAT WILL TRUELY REVOLUTIONISE THE MENTALITIES IS AN EDUCATION SYSTEM A LA MAURICIENNE. | | | MoralScientist | | | ‘Unitaire’ ne veut pas dire ‘stationnaire’, ‘accommodement au refus du changement’, ‘ceder a la pression des subversifs et des reactionnaires’, ‘capituler devant ceux qui veulent tout bloquer”. Le processus de reunification pour guerir une discorde aggravee debute lorsque la partie forte (ou ceux qui ont recolte le plus de benefices) consent a ouvrir des opportunites a la partie faible. Un cycle de renforcement mutuel est ainsi lance par la partie faible fournissant des efforts additionnels pour consolider reciproquement la confiance. Ilse trouve que, au niveau des partis politiques ou groupes sociaux, ceux qui sont au pouvoir ont beaucoup consenti, en particulier au FCM. La reciprocite a ete decevante. Le MMM, come toujours, fait de la surenchere. Le MSM, reconnaissant tantot sa faiblesse, exprime un desir de reciprocite, mais tantot, il equivoque sur les modalites pour voir de quelle cote soufflé levent. Au niveau des groupes sociaux, il ya ceux qui brandissent la menace d’une coalition de blocage de toute initiative grouvernmentale, sinon de troubles. Il ya d’autres qui ont deja beaucoup consenti, mais qui comencent a s’impatienter par le manqué de reciprocite et le sentiment d’etre pris pour des dupes. Il y a aussi ceux qui sont pris entre deux feux. Au niveau economiqe, il y a les grosses pointures qui croient qu’ils ne doivent rien a personne – donc aucune question de reciprocite. Et pourtant, le mecanisme de l’emergeance de l’ordre a partir du chaos est claire: un geste intial de bonne volonte devrait eliciter un retour de l’ascenseur et ce processus doit se repeater juqu’a ce qu’un equilibre soit trouve. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|