| | La méthode de l’attentiste | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Rabin BHUJUN
On 06/12/2009 |
La mascarade a assez duré. Yatin Varma et Vasant Bunwaree ont atteint cette semaine le degré zéro de la politique. Coups bas, allusions douteuses, langage grossier et attitude belliqueuse. Les deux membres du Parti travailliste ne reculent désormais devant rien pour marquer des points l’un contre l’autre. Leur altercation au Parlement ce mardi, durant laquelle ils ont failli en venir aux mains, n’est que l’énième épisode d’une querelle
d’égo qui dure depuis 2005. Il est temps que cela cesse !
La tournure des événements indique d’ailleurs que l’épilogue de ce mauvais feuilleton est proche. Pour s’en convaincre, il faut décrypter ce qu’il se passe actuellement au Parlement. La députée Nita Deerpalsing l’a rappelé au pays cette semaine : toute question n’est pas bonne à poser au Parlement. Ainsi, elle a révélé qu’elle n’a pas été autorisée par le bureau du Premier ministre à poser une question sur la Banque de Maurice, il y a quelques mois. Alors que la semaine dernière, une telle interdiction n’a pas semblé frapper Suren Dayal.
Le bureau du Premier ministre ne laisse passer aucune question potentiellement gênante venant de ses propres rangs. Pourtant, le Premier ministre par intérim a autorisé la question de Varma à Bunwaree. Laquelle portait sur un proche du ministre de l’Education. Rashid Beebeejaun, en politique avisé, a dû voir venir le « clash » potentiel lors de cette question. Or, il n’a rien fait pour le prévenir. Il y a sans doute une raison à cela. La raison, Navin Ramgoolam la connaît. D’ailleurs, il y a fort à parier que l’arbitrage du Premier ministre a été recherché à ce sujet. Et qu’il a donné son feu vert. Pourquoi ?
La réponse est simple. Le Premier ministre peut avoir des trajectoires erratiques sur bien de dossiers. Mais sa méthode de gestion de crise est étonnamment stable. Surtout quand la crise concerne l’un de ses ministres, députés et proches. En effet, Ramgoolam, en attentiste, prend souvent beaucoup de temps avant de faire un choix. Mais contrairement à Anerood Jugnauth, il n’est pas un adepte de la guillotine. C’est donc autrement
qu’il « lâche » ses lieutenants.
Pour comprendre ce que fait Ramgoolam en ce moment, il faut se rappeler ses attitudes passées. Prenons trois cas, ceux des anciens ministres Vishnu Bundhun, Kishore Deerpalsing et, plus récemment, celui de l’ex président de la « Mauritius Ports Authority », Siddick Chady. Les révocations ou démissions de ces trois personnalités politiques sont intervenues selon la même séquence. D’abord une allégation ou une « affaire » qui éclate. Suite à quoi Ramgoolam laisse faire les choses. Et évite de prendre position. Des
questions et « Private Notice Questions » (PNQ) s’enchaînent au Parlement. L’affaire est étalée sur la place publique. A la fin de la séquence, et à la faveur d’une convocation chez le juge, d’une commission d’enquête ou d’une arrestation, le principal intéressé est soit révoqué, soit poussé à la démission.
Il est évident que ce qu’il se passe à la Banque de Maurice obéit à cette séquence. Mais la même méthode semble être en train d’être appliquée dans le différend opposant Varma à Bunwaree. En effet, avec ce qu’il s’est passé au Parlement entre les deux ce mardi, il apparait que les deux hommes ne pourront travailler ensemble dans la même circonscription. Il va donc falloir que l’un des deux soit sacrifié.
Dans l’ensemble, Vasant Bunwaree s’est révélé un ministre de l’Education progressiste et ouvert au dialogue. Par ailleurs, il bénéficie également d’une certaine assise au Parti travailliste. Yatin Varma, lui, ne peut malheureusement prétendre avoir de mêmes atouts. Il vient même de se rajouter un handicap en se donnant une image de député colérique, voire violent et insensible à la notion de cohésion gouvernementale.
C’est donc Yatin Varma qui devrait être sanctionné dans quelques mois. Il ne devra pas alors s’étonner de ne pas obtenir ce ticket pour lequel il se bat aussi âprement en ce moment. Car ainsi en aura décidé Ramgoolam. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comme toujors | | | Malheureusement aux prochaines elections le jeunot sera le seul a etre sacrifie. Les dinosaures eux sont intouchables. | | | From: COMMONER | | |
What Makes for an Effective Prime Minister? Chairman or Chief?
La mascarade. / La méthode de l’attentiste.\ What aspects of prime-ministerial personality, skill or style matter and make a difference to politics and government?
What qualities have served well or poorly in Sir William Newton Street? Analyse prime-ministerial performance and the strengths and weaknesses of Mauritius prime minister in terms of: (1) proficiency as public communicator, (2) organisational capacity, (3) political skill, (4) policy vision, (5) cognitive style and (6) emotional intelligence. There is at least as much to be learned from the failures and limitations in these terms as from his successes and strengths. Ramgoolam believes that time is on Labour's side, that the opposition relative growing strength will diminish, and that electoral boundaries revisited rules can be put off for another 5 years. The position, power and status of prime ministers differ depending on the age of the constitution. Australia's constitution makes no mention of a Prime Minister of Australia. India's constitution (1950) lists the powers, functions and duties of the Prime Minister of India. Ireland's constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann (1937), provides for the office of Taoiseach in detail, listing powers, functions and duties. Malaysia's constitution (1957) lists the powers, functions and duties of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The United Kingdom's constitution, being uncodified and largely unwritten, makes no mention of a prime minister. Though it had de facto existed for centuries, its first mention in official state documents did not occur until the first decade of the twentieth century. Accordingly, it is often said "not to exist", indeed there are several instances of parliament declaring this to be the case. The prime minister sits in the cabinet solely by virtue of occupying another office, First Lord of the Treasury (office in commission). Exit from office: In most modern parliamentary systems, the prime minister is the person who decides when to request a parliamentary dissolution. Older constitutions often vest this power in the cabinet. (In the United Kingdom, for example, the tradition whereby it is the prime minister who requests dissolution of parliament dates back to 1918. Prior to then, it was the entire government that made the request. Chairman or Chief? Professor Brian Farrell coined the term Chairman or Chief to describe the two alternative concepts of prime ministerial leadership. The term, widely used in political science worldwide, draws a distinction between a head of government who is merely a facilitator and co-ordinator of a cabinet (the "chairman"), and those who lead it forcefully from the front, setting its policy agenda and requiring all ministers to follow the leader's policies (the "chief"). Examples of "chairmen" have included John Major (United Kingdom) and Couve de Murville (France), while examples of "chiefs" included Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (India), Seán Lemass (Ireland), Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair (United Kingdom), and Jacques Chirac when prime minister under cohabitation. Not every prime minister fits exclusively into either category. Among the more dominant prime ministerial offices in terms of powers, and so more chieflike, are the premierships of Ireland and Spain, where premiers can hire and fire at will. In contrast, offices such as Prime Minister of the Third French Republic, and the premierships of Belgium and The Netherlands are more chairmanlike in format. Wilfried Martens, who served as Prime Minister of Belgium, described his role as follows: First of all []the Prime Minister] must listen a lot, and when deep disagreements occur, he must suggest a solution to the matter. When viewing the current tenure in office of prime minister- I am deeply disappointed in it- mostly about politics, i.e. getting and staying elected. If that is what we want in our leaders, then we should put spin at the top. Have we learned nothing in the last four and a half years of spin, financial legerdemain, inability to admit mistakes, sofa government, and lack of resignations on failure, lack of evidence based policy trumped too often by socialist dogma? What happened to integrity, honesty, judgement, decency, humility, attention to detail and plain raw ability? In furthering the Socialist dream of helping the poor etc, then why not raise THEM up to a better standard rather than impoverishing the rest of us down to their level? So, I guess missing qualities are protection of the law-abiding against the feral, protection of the freedom and privacy of the individual, protection of ancient laws which have served well for centuries, an ability to stop giggling inappropriately with a rictus grin... I think most of us could come up with several hundred missing qualities!! The Ten Qualities of a Good Prime Minister- This set me to speculate on what those ten qualities might be. Here's my list. 1. Decisiveness.2. Conviction.3.Understanding the motivations of Middle Mauritius. 4. Being a good negotiator. 5. Being a good conciliator. 6. Having a good TV presence. 7. Being a good parliamentary performer. 8. Having a thick skin. 9. Being able to cut through civil service fat cats bureaucracy. 10. Having a non political hinterland. Not better forget ethics... No one put it better than Dwight Eisenhower when he said that the qualities of a great man are "vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and profundity of character". The other, more specific, qualities that you require are, I reckon, just spin-offs of the above. Morals and the ability to empathise. How about... Taking responsibility for your actions. Telling truth to the public. As for Qualities.- Honesty, Truthfulness and the ability to understand the people would be paramount, sadly such qualities cannot be described of any of our modern day politicians. Understanding the problems facing Mauritius, both domestically and internationally. 2. Having solutions for those problems.
But of course this is silly. It's much more important that the government appears to be doing something about the nation's problems than it is to actually solve them. So for example, as long as the government manages to persuade people that crime is going down, or the recession isn't their fault, it doesn't matter if the government can't actually fix those issues. Yes, Minister was right: prime ministers measure their success in column inches and how big their majority is. So a good PM needs just one quality-All to do with intellectual pursuits outside of one vocation and keeping the mind active throughout life. What have I missed out? What a font of covert authorritarianism. All of his non-verbal signalling - the gestures and body language where we give our real game away, no matter how hard try to conceal it - speak of only two things: Power and Money. Decisiveness-The quality of decisiveness is best shown by W.B.Yeats: The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
| | | Prakash | | | 06 12 09
Bien dit, Ramgoolam n'est pas A Jugnauth, il n'est jamais presser de prendre des sanctions, a l'encontre de ses deputés ou autre conseilleurs qui ont fautté quelques part mais ils font les sanctionner au moment venu, Y Varma doive commencé a faire ses valises. Ce n'est pas la premiere fois, qu'il mettre le PTr, dans des mauvaises situations | | | Baltazar | | | La guerre des vautours affamés. L'exigence des encapareurs, la soif du pouvoir leur rend même aveugle vis à vis du public. Quelle honte ! Des parlementaires pareils méritent l'expulsion. I will give them a ticket to hell. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|