Like yesterday’s political enemies, maybe all Mauritians should hold hands and embark on cheek kissing all over the country to show PM Ramgoolam how much of a ‘‘rassembleur’’ he is.
While Pravind Jugnauth, new leader of the opposition is of the opinion that the PTr-MMM alliance is one between ‘‘un jouisseur et un traître’’, PM Ramgoolam believes that there is ‘‘no bigger rassembleur than the PTr’’, if people are to believe his declaration at Kewal Nagar on September 18 on the occasion of the celebration of the 114th anniversary of the birth of his father, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam.
Yet, I have no recollection of SSR claiming to be such a ‘‘rassembleur’’. Is PM Ramgoolam lying or does he simply have no understanding of the term which he keeps repeating ad nauseam. The reason why SSR did not make such a claim cannot be other than that he knew politics is always about differing and dividing opinions, where one competes against another, so people can choose what they think is best for them. In a referendum held in Scotland last Thursday, 55% of Scots voted against independence. How would the likes of Ramgoolam have united the Scottish people? When Ramgoolam imports the term ‘‘rassembleur’’ into politics, he clearly does not know what he is talking about.
Similarly, Ramgoolam has no notion of ‘‘national unity’’ since political parties have differing ideologies, such as ‘‘idéologie jouisseur’’ or ‘‘idéologie mensongère’’ or ‘‘idéologie dictatoriale’’ or a combination thereof. He is of opinion that ‘‘national unity’’ has to do with his alliance with Paul Bérenger so he can continue to enjoy the fruits of power. One speaks of national unity when the country is competing internationally in sports or when the country is facing an external threat, such as the occupation of the Chagos and the displacement of its people, to which SSR was regrettably an accomplice. Mauritians are not even fighting for independence but they are clearly facing an internal threat.
When the white European enslaved the black African, did he say because he was a racist or because the black African was so inferior that he could be enslaved (ref. Traité Négrière)? When the British went to Hindustan, did they say it was because they wanted to colonise the subcontinent, steal and murder, or did they say because they wanted to trade (ref. East India Company)? When Navin Ramgoolam schemes to remain in power for over a decade, does he say it is because he wants to enjoy more power via a form of dictatorship by seeking the help of Bérenger after the introduction of a surveillance system through spy cameras and Biometric ID Card, or does he say it is because he is such a ‘‘grand rassembleur’’ and for ‘‘national unity’’ (ref. PTr- MMM alliance)?
What is Ramgoolam assembling or reassembling in politics? Those who cannot make ends meet, those who are homeless, those who are without jobs, those who are losing their eye-sight or losing their lives through unpunished medical negligence, children who are committing suicide in schools and colleges because they are bullied, those who lost their lives in the floods due to negligence of the authorities? Or is he assembling power-hungry politicians like him. But, of course, he claims he is not power-hungry like Sir Aneerood Jugnauth. Why is he contracting a political alliance with Bérenger then, the latter being the leader of the second largest party?
Pravind Jugnauth is right in telling Mauritians that the so-called get-together between the PTr and the MMM is a ‘‘provocation’’ and that Ramgoolam and Bérenger are only preoccupied with power-sharing rather than the concerns of the population. The hand holding and cheek kissing between yesterday’s political enemies Paul Bérenger and Nita Deerpalsing, Ramgoolam’s Communications Director who he insulted in a microphone incident, should sum up this revolting alliance and enough to make decent Mauritians throw up.
When Ramgoolam and Bérenger said that they will do everything to make the alliance work, they meant their alliance in their own interests. The people are not involved and they are presented with only a fait accompli.