| | Esprit de réforme | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Nazim Esoof
On 23/11/2009 |
Dans son dernier budget, le ministre des Finances met l’accent sur l’esprit de réforme qui habite le gouvernement. Ce gouvernement, lui-même, ne cesse de chanter sur tous les toits que le réformisme est le principe cardinal qui anime ses actions.
Tout cela est bien beau. Mais, la réforme ne s’applique pas que sur le terrain économique.
Il y a un dossier qui nécessite une réforme en profondeur et sur lequel les différents gouvernements, qui se sont succédé, ont fait preuve d’une amnésie déconcertante. Il s’agit évidemment de la réforme électorale. Cette réforme est pourtant celle qui pourrait changer la société mauricienne et la débarrasser d’une bonne dose de sectarisme qui la mine. Rezistans ek Alternativ ne s’y trompe pas lorsqu’il en fait un cheval de bataille. Son combat contre le système de «best losers» est méritoire.
Grâce à l’initiative de ce mouvement, l’Etat mauricien ne dispose plus que de six mois pour préciser sa position sur le fait de savoir si les candidats à une élection doivent ou non obligatoirement décliner leurs appartenances ethniques. C’est devant l’United Nations Human Rights Committee que le gouvernement mauricien devra se prononcer.
A ce jour, nos dirigeants politiques se sont montrés bien pusillanimes sur cette question. Dans le principe, ils sont bien d’accord pour se défaire de cette pratique. Dans les faits, ils n’ont jamais eu le courage d’agir en ce sens. Car, ils savent que cela engendrera une véritable révolution politique dans le pays. Sera ainsi remis en question le système de «best loser». Il n’est pas seulement question de ce système. Il y va de toute une série de pratiques électorales. Il y a également cette peur des «susceptibilités» des électeurs. Ou encore la nécessité de «rassurer et de sécuriser» les Mauriciens dans leur identité religieuse. De leur garantir une représentativité ethnique au sein du système politique.
Il faut aujourd’hui rappeler que le système électoral en cours prend appui sur des réalités qui datent de la période pré-indépendance. Plus de quarante ans se sont écoulés. L’actuel Premier ministre dénonce souvent le repli identitaire. Comment les citoyens mauriciens peuvent-ils développer un nouveau rapport à la thématique ethnique si on les pousse vers des réflexes surannés?
C’est une grande fabrique d’hypocrisie nationale que font rouler les politiques traditionnels. Il faut seulement espérer que Rezistans ek Alternativ obtiendra gain de cause. Ce serait une victoire pour le pays et la défaite des esprits obscurantistes.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sabrina | | | Mon vieux grand-pere, souvent tombe dans un profond sommeil au milieu de sa conversation. Il m'est arrive la meme chose en lisant certains commentaires de formule A4. Il est, en effet, un soulagement a voir la lumiere au bout du tunnel mais ce qui s'approche vers ce tunnel peut etre une penible surprise. | | | VOTERCARE | | | From: VOTERCARE
Esprit de réforme: dernier budget, le ministre des Finances met l’accent sur l’esprit de réforme qui habite le gouvernement. Ce gouvernement, lui-même, ne cesse de chanter sur tous les toits que le réformisme est le principe cardinal qui anime ses actions./ Achieving Real Reform: First, Get Everybody Talking Constructively. There is a growing sense among the Mauritius Republic people that our disgusting money-and-politics problem is undermining Mauritian democracy, and campaign reform has become the mantra of the current political season. But, as in past times of campaign reform fervour, efforts to pass meaningful reform of our nation's campaign and voter’s registration law probably will fail. Recent history, teaches us that we face ultimate disappointment because of a critical deficiency in the overall campaign reform movement. The big finance boot political party, while there is an excess of effort directed toward substantive issues of campaign finance, we are missing two vital organizational elements of any successful political movement: focus and coordination. My purpose here is to define the basic problem of current conditions -- the anarchistic nature of the campaign reform movement -- and to propose a solution to this problem. The most common explanation for why campaign reform is so exclusive is that most elected public officials (and their special- interest supporters) do not want to give up any of their power and advantage. Political survival and dominance are the unseemly but basic nature of the political animal. But a very pertinent, equally important, and often overlooked reason for unsuccessful campaign reform is the fact that there is no consensus in the reform community about what reform really mean and how to get from here to there. The campaign reform movement is truly a dysfunctional world of good-government anarchy, filled with diversity, contradiction, and contentiousness. Sincere, intense reformers fall on all sides of every substantive issue -- the nature and amount of money raised and spent in campaigns, the role of white collar activists and special interests, public financing, soft money, independent expenditures, negative ads -- you name it, and there is a difference of opinion. There's strong disagreement, too, about how to approach reform -- whether to start with specific legislation, work through a commission, or pass a constitutional amendment; whether to push for a comprehensive package or incremental steps; whether it should be a Democratic, Republican, or bipartisan plan. Unfortunately, there is no management mechanism anywhere in the process to focus and coordinate the noisy, discordant reform community; thus, the legislative course is predictable. Outside good-government groups and reform-oriented Members of genuine reforms go charging off, individually and in packs, in a multiplicity of directions; anti-reform forces deftly game the reform issue, exploit the disparate reform factions, and manipulate the legislative process, with minimal accountability, to kill campaign reform. The fatal anarchy of the reform movement is especially frustrating because, unlike the anti-reform nature of the political animal, this obstacle derives from the reformers themselves, and could be corrected, or at least managed and minimised, by that same reform community. It should be obvious that serious people now must provide the missing organisational requirements -- focus and coordination -- for an effective campaign reform movement. We need to create an institution -- I'll call it the Reform Roundtable -- to fulfill this mission. The Reform Roundtable would consist of reform-oriented Members of all stakeholders, and it would function as a legislative support organization, providing valuable institutional resources (such as information and staff) for an effective campaign reform movement. The Reform Roundtable would be a politically independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization with no predetermined definition of campaign
Reform. It would advocate campaign reform generally, and it would cooperate with other reform efforts; however, its primary purpose would be to enhance the process and prospects for real, substantive campaign reform. Creation of this Reform Roundtable would enhance prospects for reform by: * 1. Developing a "team" spirit (despite substantive and procedural differences) among key reform players inside and outside Parliament * 2. Focusing the team on some basic, common principles of reform and understanding of how specific reform proposals relate to those principles; and * 3. Coordinating team efforts toward passage of reform legislation incorporating those principles. Why create another reform entity? Do we really need another "do-gooder" group when the political landscape is already cluttered with pro-reform players? The answer is that the current existing organisations were created by outsiders, for outsiders, to push substantive reform proposals there is no entity which focuses sufficiently on the process, particularly the inside process, where reform efforts most often falter. To win the campaign-reform game, we must direct our attention to where and how the game is played -- inside big lobby party. And we must work closely with those players -- reform-oriented Members genuine reformists -- who are on the playing field when the game is won or lost. At the same time, we have to team the efforts of our inside players with those of reformers outside pressure group. No such entity exists today that performs this assignment or can accomplish the mission. The Reform Roundtable would fill that void. Of course, idea of a Reform Roundtable cannot guarantee campaign reform. The biggest problem is that the roundtable concept requires a vast universe of reform players to cooperate in a collective effort, and it may be that the reform community can't ever agree. Furthermore, the Reform Roundtable would have to secure outside assistance since Members of political parties are prohibited from funding such an organisation. Finally, even under the best situations, the reformers may prove no match for the anti-reform beast. Nevertheless, regardless of these uncertainties, the bottom line is that the reform community must make a strategic decision. Are we going to continue our old, time-disproven, anarchistic approach to campaign reform and voters registration? Or are we ready to try something different -- working together - that just might be successful? If we really want to enhance the prospects for success, then we need to reform the reform process. Serious people must take definite steps now to add requisite focus and coordination to the campaign-reform process. What is really amazing is that the present establishment keep painting, in 10-foot high letters, what they are trying to do and the public still falls for it. The repetitiveness about everything being complex from political skipper, and further studies being needed, like the latest budget- the same drama playing out every day they persist in the political and fiscal heedlessness that characterizes their push for self interested care. It's as if they don't realize that they're led by a marginally popular prime minister (dipping below 50 percent public approval , are deeply unpopular themselves and are pushing for legislation that is opposed by more people than support it in almost every single opinion poll.
| | | eric | | | Under the 1959 Best Loser System(BSL), 8 members are appointed from a list of unsuccessful candidates,designed to privide"balanced" ethnic and political representation members serve a 5-year term, no by-election in the event of death or resignation of a member, BSL was created by the late DR Ramgoolam after he hijacked the PTr..., BSL was to offer"protection to minority groups at the time mainly the Creoles. To vote or not to, the gonernment still gets elected, bad joke. Allow Navin Ramgoolam another term as PM wpold strengthen "Le Pere de La Nation" into Ile Ramgoolam. Remember Ceylon, Rhodesia,Congo Dacca, to mention only a few OH yes that Martin Luther King Speech "I HAVE A DREAM TODAY" | | | Batard Mauricien | | | Un grand " Ouf de soulagement" . Nazim ! Merci et bravo pour cette publication. On commence à voir la lumière au bout du tunnel. Exellente initiative de Rezistans ek Alternative. Je suis persuadé qu'ils gagneront la battaille et plus personne ne me traitera de rêveur. Ce sera un evènment historique. Les Sociaux-culturels-religieux seront contrainte de rester dans leurs lieux de prière respectifs et ne plus se meler de la politique. Yuppee-Ya-Yeh !!! | | | Jose Philibert | | | C'est unanime le souhait de l'entente dans le pays. Malgré les voeux pieux de beaucoup, y compris du mien pour une égalité la plus parfaite possible, je pense sincèrement que LE BEST LOSER est UTILE au pays et à tous. | | | Burn-it | | | Que se passera-t-il si l'Etat décide de ne rien préciser dans le délai qui a été donné? Sera-t-il sanctionné? | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|