| | “Distasteful” | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Raj Meetarbhan
On 08/02/2012 |
Les intentions sont nobles, la réforme est réalisable, mais les propositions de Rama Sithanen butent sur un sérieux obstacle. Un groupe spécifique, en l’occurrence la communauté musulmane, est craintif et se sent mal à l’aise vis-à-vis de l’abolition projetée du «Best Loser System». Si ce sentiment de peur devait conduire les dirigeants à abandonner la réforme électorale annoncée, ce serait un terrible coup pour le pays.
Cette peur n’est pas fondée sur des faits.
L’étude détaillée de Rama Sithanen prouve mathématiquement que le BLS ne saurait garantir à aucune communauté une meilleure représentativité au Parlement qu’un scrutin mixte et des circonscriptions bien délimitées. La résistance qui s’organise contre la réforme au sein de certaines plates-formes ne tient donc qu’au facteur émotionnel.
D’ailleurs, l’auteur de l’initiative citoyenne pour une réforme électorale admet que le «symbolical dimension of the BLS is intense». Cependant, il explique que, dans les faits, l’impact de ce système est bien plus faible que le mécanisme d’équité inhérent à sa formule.
Rama Sithanen met également en relief d’autres aberrations du BLS. Exemple : «In 1995, Beeharry, a Muslim, was awarded a Best Loser seat even if his party had a very insignificant percentage of the national vote compared to the 20 % of the MSM-RMM. Worse, he won only 4,405 votes while Soodhun, also a Muslim, polled 7,416 votes without a Best Loser seat. In 2000, Leopold with only 7,732 votes (his party took 1 % of national vote) won a Best Loser seat while Petit, of the same community, with 14,626 (and his party had 37 % of votes overall) did not.»
Des simulations démontrent que le nouveau système offre un substitut qui garantit une représentativité équitable à chaque communauté tout en supprimant de notre Constitution la référence ethnique. Une référence que Navin Ramgoolam a raison de qualifier de «dégoûtant», reprenant à son compte une expression du légiste de Smith.
Ce que l’on peut reprocher à nos dirigeants, c’est leur louvoiement et leur refus de dire les choses sans ambages. On ne peut dire au Morne le contraire de ce qu’on déclame à Phoenix. Cela ne peut que semer la confusion et amplifier la peur irrationnelle.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PLOUM PLOUM - DR FU MANCHU- MOUSTACHE | | | Professor Sinfat Chu :! Quote : en abolissant le BLS, nous aurons pu etre aujourd'hui une societe aussi meritocratique et performante comme Singapoure”. With all due respect, stop misleading LEPEP ADMIRAB. As pointed out in the Sachs report, the BLS ever since its inception, has hardly made any impact on Government functioning ( performante ou pas ), let alone contribute to any significant measure to the Communalism mentioned to at all times during this “ FAUT DEBAT”. Communalism has existed in our midst as long ago as we have existed as a Nation. Removing, Retaining or subsuming BLS will hardly make any impact. Now returning to your claim on Singapore and meritocracy or being a democracy!! Really? It is not Rocket science nor do we need mathematical models to deduce that Democracy, Meritocracy and Singapore are contradictions in kind. Why don’t you talk about the Ethnic Electoral system of Singapore ? That is, their own version of BLS : GRC – Group Representation Constituency which a scheme operated by the President primarily to enshrine minority representation in Parliament : at least one of the MP of the GRC must be a Malay, Indian or another minority community of Singapore. Whereas our BLS is implemented by a Commissioner, agissant en toute independence, the Singapore GRC is completely under the whims of the …..who else , Mr The President !! Decisions on such matters cannot be appealed against or called into question in any Singapore Court. Our Block 104 went all the way to Her Majesty’s Highest Court of Appeal !! Charming Democracy, this Little City-State !! Professor Joel Fetzer of Mailbu University, California wrote an interesting article ( here is the Link: http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0401/135-154-Joel%20S.%20Fetzer.pdf
And here is an extract : ***** Ethnic Setting of Singapore : Although Lee Kuan Yew claims that Singapore’s economic opportunities are equally available to citizens of all ethnic groups, the society is effectively stratified into three principal layers. At the top is the 75 percent of the population who are ethnically Chinese (typically ethnic Fujianese, Cantonese, or Hakka). Their average monthly income in 2006 was Sg$6,520, and 10.8 percent of Chinese citizens were university graduates in 2000. A close second in prosperity is the 9 percent of the resident nationals who are Indian (generally Tamils). Their income (Sg$5,940/month in 2006) and educational attainment almost reach those of the Chinese majority (8.1 percent university graduates in 2000). Finally, Malays fall at the bottom of the society, making up 14 percent of the population and being relegated to almost half the average monthly income (Sg$3,850 in 2006) and a fifth of the educational attainment (1.8 percent university graduates in 2000) of Chinese.36 Such inter-ethnic inequality produces “the acute sense of relative deprivation generally felt by the Malay community with their persisting place in the socio-economic margins of society.” Given that Malays might feel that PAP dominance does not work toward their economic advantage and that many supported the early Barisan Sosialis opposition party,38 we may expect the Malay minority to vote for opposition candidates more frequently than do Chinese- and Indian-Singaporeans. “**** May I finally add that The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has enjoyed parliamentary monopoly from 1966 to 1981. Opposition Parties have only managed to secure 2-4 seats in the last two decades. For all intents and purposes, Singapore has been a soft authoritarian One Party State controlled by PAP. Now hands up, those who wish to live under such a system?
| | | Emiliano Z | | | RajR, you've opened up a vein and flooded this page with commonsense. What's wrong with you? Man is a mammal. A predator. And he is tribal by nature. Getting rid of the BLS will not suddenly erase two million years of his evolution to make of him a perfect specimen capable of perfect justice. Man needs a system to protect him against himself. A guarantee. Otherwise his animal instincts kick in. History backs this up. And here, we are thinking of swapping constitutional guarantee for politician's discretion. Wishing for something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so. | | | PLOUM PLOUM - Dr FU MANCHU ! MOUSTACHE !! | | | The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)
enjoyed parliamentary monopoly from 1966 to 1981, and in the last two decades,
while conceding between two and four seats to the opposition, has continued
to exert such political dominance that some see Singapore as virtually a oneparty state. | | | Lélio Wong | | | Semer la confusion parceque le BLS ne peut se définir constitutionnellement. Navin Ramgoolam lui même est trop conservatif ( Vaish avant, Morisien après et entrainé à la Westminster) qu'il n'est pas en mésure de partager la philisophie des autres races et religions qu'il se fait dicter par des ignorants lécheurs bottes de son camp qui fait que c'est lui qui se rend ridicule et dégoûtant. Le BLS pendant trop longtemps un joker pour pouvoir manipuler s'est évolué en nuisance. Alors quest-qu'on attend pour l'éliminer démocratiquement à travers un référendum ?Non on continue à se faire berner par toutes divergences d'opinions qui n'aboutissent à rien. Quand on pense au temps et l'argent que ca coûte ! Cette perte, on est tous complices. Parcequ'on tolère le communalisme. | | | Ramanand | | | Mo dakor avek Singfat chu c la faute au MMM/Beranger
kan an 1982 li ti mette ene minis kiltir ki ti pe rode fer en sel lep en sel nation en sel langaz en sel r.....Apre ban centre kiltirel finne kumance pousser apre 1983 kan MMM ti split ek Msm ti forme.C la faute plis de Beranger ki ti rode PSM dehor avek tu banne reaktion ki finne enan.BLS pas kapav remplacer aster pran nimero10 kan 3 hindou elire no2 3mizilman finne elire ek sino morisien perdi hereseman mmm fine mette Kee chong dan nimero20 ek Sikyeun finne deklar li popilation zeneral.Si dan nimero10 /13/15/18/19/2/4 enan ziste vote kominal pas party list ki pu arriver.Sithanen so proposition bien bon mais pas realizable akoz tu boulverseman ki ti koumancer apre 60zero de 1982 lerla demon kominal ek lezotte metter dife inne leve latete.Zordi bizin hypocrite pu dire ki morisien pas kominal.Enan ankor boukoup lexamp.Banne minorite senti zotte secure avek BLS bizin pa zouer avek dife. | | | zapata | | | Thanks RajR for this analysis keep it up. | | | RajR | | | Raj, I do not mean to be patronizing. Your intention and observations may be right. But, please please, please why does the media get so easily entangled into the trap of distraction thrown down by the politicians. How come there is in the Mauritian press such a convergence to conduct public debate invariably based on the agenda dictated by the politicians? All other issues like Corruption, institutional mismanagement, fraud, nepotism etc are being driven into oblivion just to entertain the more partisan-like but sterile debate on BLS or Electoral Reforms ( at least in the present context) . Is this the priority subject of the public debate today however appealing the intellectual analysis and arguments of the once-fallen from grace Mr Sithanen ? What would change in terms of QUALITY of our democracy or the reflexes of our politicians and the leadership in this country if hypothetically we were to agree to a particular electoral reform now, including the abolition of BLS? With the abolition of BLS or Electoral Reform, would there be an emergence of a new breed of enlightened politicians and electorates that would uphold the tenets of democracy with all integrity? Would there be an end to the tendency to make Mauritius a Despot Delight or lifetime tenure for parliamentarians/party leaders? This is what is most important for the common man: the Qualitative Change not just a mere Quantitative permutation inspired by present main party politics agenda. As I commented in Vel Mooniens’s article yesterday, there is ample ground to appeal for the media to conduct a real rethink of its role in the participative democratic process of our society. It is too important an institution to be left contemplating radical change from other institutions while it is itself operating on a fundamentally status quo mode. If there were more Salim Muthy like people in the press to dare challenge and expose directly the politics of lies, deceit , manipulation and cheap propaganda by our so called leaders, Mauritius would have been a cleaner place since long. But we do not do this… for unknown reasons. Perhaps, due to outright fear or vested interests?? Now, imagine what all this send as signal to the common people in turn.No doubt, they will continue to be a ‘peuple suiveur et soumis’ … having been conditioned thus! Can we contemplate for once whether a report like that recently conducted by M6 on Mauritius (whatever its true worth) would have been undertaken by our local press soldiers? Would it have been possible to report and debate extensively in Mauritius the immoral conduct of Mr Dominique Strauss Kahn? Probably here fear or ‘plus Royaliste que le Roi’ fans would have argued that it is about his sacrosanct private life…as if a human being exists in two pieces ( one public and one private). Yet in America, private life or not, an immoral conduct at high level is strongly condemned ( Senator Herman Cain had to withdraw from the US Presidential bid on mere allegations). In America, Sir!!! Here it is l’Omerta !! Yet underlying all our major leadership and institutional failings are a problem of immoral or unethical conduct? Whether we euphemistically lump it all as Corruption. Here we contend with the mere legalistic perspective and let highly compromising behaviours from our leaders go scot-free. Why? In the recent infidelity case involving the famous ( rather notorious now) footballer Ryan Giggs, one judge stated in the British press that rich and powerful people should understand that the Privacy Law is meant to PROTECT their private lives and not to HIDE their immoral acts and misdemeanors! Thus, the Press had the duty to expose the wrong behaviour of Giggs ( private or not) , especially if he had the responsibility to be Role Model to society. As an end note, I would invite all friends/readers to read the works of the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen ( and also John Rawls) where he analyses the root cause of the problems in our society as one of not of its institutions but rather that of the actual Behaviours of Individuals constituting those institutions. By focusing on institutions we are too conveniently bailing out the true culprits and debating in the abstract. In Mauritius, we are unfortunately not doing enough to question the right/wrong behavior of our leaders as Role Models in our society (probably due to the blind submission to outright legalistic considerations imposed by the establishment). Or may be we are living in an age of intellectual cynicism where we are already confused about what is Right and Wrong..and yet we continue to fight for justice and democracy along this premise. Enjoy the fruitful debate. Take care. | | | Singfat Chu | | | Jose, si le MMM / PSM avait completé le "travail" en 1982 en abolissant le BLS, nous aurons pu etre aujourd'hui une societe aussi meritocratique et performante comme Singapoure ! **** C'est pourquoi on doit avoir le PR SANS le BLS afin d'accomplir un "clean job" !
Avec le BLS, on ne pourra pas differiencer la vrai contribution du Party List. | | | le sheriff | | | Jose, Il y a des fois ou tu dis vraiement des c..., mais cette fois ci tu as fait un effort. Tres bonne analyse. | | | Jose Philibert | | | C'est dommage pourtant que Maurice étant un pays multi-ethnique vivant en Harmonie comme une mosaique que le MMM/PSM de 1982 a d'un TRAIT de PLUME des 60 zéros enlever les couleurs de la mosaique et enlever l'IDENDITË de tout un chacun. Nous sommes tous Mauriciens mais de diverses cultures et nos 60 zeros auraient mieux fait de préserver les couleurs de notre mosaique au lieu de croire le pays en osmose. Le 60-0 ne signifiait pas cela. D'ailleurs les 60-0 de 1982 a éclaté quelques mois plus tard en 1983. Peuvent-ils penser au mal qu'ils ont fait à l'ile Maurice ces 60-0? | | | Jose Philibert | | | Si l'on peut condamner ou approuver les positions divergentes par rapport au BLS parce que dit-on les positions sont des réactions émotionelles , l'on peut avoir recours à une analyse clinique de la chose pour y voir plus claire. ====
2. Chacun peut faire l'inventaire des raisons pour ou contre le BLS et les inventaires comprendront bien pour chacun une bonne liste de bonne raisons. ===== 3 Il y a trop d'éléments CONFLICTUELS que l'on veut introduire en même temps dans le systême électoral que tous nous y perdons le nord. 4. Des antagonnistes proposent trop souvent des éléments contradictoires simultanément. 5. En plus que l'on y ajoute les influences de religions, des associations socio-culturelles et les jeux des partis politiques. Nous sommes dans un capharnaum. ======
A la base il faut reconnaitre que A. Il n'y a pas théoriquement de communautés à Maurice parceque personne n'est recensé à base de communauté depuis 1982. Donc tous les propos faisant référence à la comunauté et de représentation des communautés ne sont que du BLUFF, des tromperies etc... Vaut mieux que les politiques et les journalistes et commentateurs cessent de nous berner avec cela.
2. Il coule de source que c'est absolument CON et CON de demander à un candidat de déclarer sa communauté puisqu'il n'en a pas. Personne n'en a. Voilà. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|