Hi, London bhoy! Seems all London bhoys think alike! It has now emerged that just before general elections 2005, an opinion poll done by a French firm on Navin's request gave MMM/MSM likely winners with all MMM candidates supposedly elected. A quick colle-fit negotiation took place with MSM, then. The choice of Navin's candidates in Curepipe was therefore a stage along the pre-arranged MSM/PTr deal. Hence the CLP campaign against the Alliance Sociale candidates. Remember during the elections Navin never condemned CLP no 17 and remember some PTr dinosaurs campaigned openly against Dr Brizmohun and Michel at no 17. Any way it has been agreed to make room for Pravind, Soodhun, Bodha, Lejonglard, and Leela Devi Dookun. Dulloo is out; Gokhool and Jeetah are on way out. Sithanen and Dr Beebeejaun are probably on slippery ground...

Dear Mr Athishjai

Thank you for your reply.

Firstly, you are right in stating that it is clear from my article that Mr Dulloo is indeed responsible for his act. By deciding to revoke him, the PM is also responsible for his action.

In a few words you have asked me the perennial question, which lawyers and politicians have been debating for decades and they have come out none the wiser simply because they are prisoner of the system they helped put in place and are fighting tooth and nail to preserve. What is this democracy we hear so much about? Perhaps the only innovation about it is ‘majority rule’ through one man (and woman) one vote. Democracy has adopted other concepts, such as human rights, justice and equity, protection of minority rights, État de droit, freedom of speech, which are not inventions of democracy. Europeans like to think that everything they believe in and propagate comes from the Greek civilisation when, in truth, the Greeks borrowed heavily from the Sumerian, Egyptian and Indus Valley civilisations. The term « democracy » may be a Greek word meaning « rule by common people » but most things in it do not belong to their civilisation. Moreover, the rulers in today’s so-called democracies cannot be regarded as « common [or ordinary] people » as envisaged by the concept. Democracy is merely a state of mind, and does not truly exist in practice. For example, there is nothing in democracy which says that a government must remain in power for 5 or more years. Strictly speaking, the people may decide to get rid of a government by making their voice heard. Mauritius has a constitution which can only be amended by 75% of elected MPs, but this constitution was never put in place by over 75% of the people. Only 56% of voters voted in favour of independence, yet the constitution recognises this ‘independence’. In true democracies, every single constitutional issue ought to be the subject of a referendum, except matters of human rights, freedom of conscience and association, and the like.

Mr Dulloo (or Dr Ramgoolam) cannot be regarded as an ordinary person even though he may well have been elected by ordinary persons. This does not amount to « rule by common people » within the meaning of democracy. Today’s democracies are about power, wealth and world domination. Mauritius may not be seeking world domination, in the sense that it does not tolerate foreign military bases on its lands, but it is no different in terms of power and wealth. Politicians tend to fight to preserve power without which they are powerless. Our type of democracy has espoused a capitalist economic system since it is wealth which creates more wealth, and this wealth is concentrated in the hands of less than 10% of the population. Dr Ramgoolam wants to change that, which is a noble aspiration. But the chances are that this will fail as long as we preserve a capitalist-oriented democracy. Democracy is financed by capitalists. In Europe, even the capitalist media finance governments and oppositions alike. This is why I say that Mauritius has the freest press in the world.

As a Minister, Mr Dulloo operates under similar constraints. He forms part of a system which is not of his making but which he has accepted and sworn loyalty to. I do not have anything against the man. I have no doubt that he is a fine lawyer and needs no lesson on collective responsibility. But, as a politician, he is also guided by his political instincts. The system of Cabinet government demands a form of responsibility not demanded from ordinary MPs. If Mr Dulloo wanted to preserve his independence he should have opted for the position of what we call a « backbench MP ». But this does not mean that he cannot voice his dissention within the Cabinet; of course he can. But once a Cabinet decision is taken, he is under obligation to abide by it and defend that decision. The Prime Minister may be Primus inter pares, but his lonely voice cannot prevail over all the other Ministers. The majority of Ministers must agree with him and binds everyone collectively. A Prime Minister may also be subject to a vote of no-confidence.

My interpretation of what I have read in the press is that things have become very personal between the PM and Mr Dulloo. Mr Dulloo should have resigned rather than allowed himself to be revoked. He knows because he has been there before. Allow me to ask you to consider the following. How did Mr Dulloo collect, collate, analyse and interpret his data from his party delegates on Sunday 16th March 2008 (and previously) and come up with the ‘information’ of their « dissatisfaction » with the PM and his (meaning the government’s) policies? Don’t you feel that everything has been stage-managed? In his interview published in today’s l’Express (23rd March 2008), Mr Dulloo confesses that after two years and nine months « je n’ai pas eu suffisamment de soutien » among the other Ministers. It is therefore clear that what he has been doing during all this time was to attempt in forming a dissenting mini-Cabinet within the Cabinet. By his own admission, he effectively wanted to hijack the Prime Ministership of Dr Ramgoolam in the same way as Paul Bérenger did when he too was revoked by none other than Dr Ramgoolam himself in his previous government. Mr Dulloo’s desire to join the opposition of Paul Bérenger is therefore not a surprise. Maybe this is what was prearranged, but the opposition is reluctant to welcome him with open arms for the moment because the PM has outsmarted them.

Many people would not call this simply a « disagreement with the PM » but refer to it as an act of « treachery ». Mr Dulloo had the option to resign and sit as a backbencher – he did not do that. He had the option to resign and call a partial election when he would have had the chance of putting his case directly to the people he says he cares so much for – he did not do that either.

Yours sincerely

M Rafic Soormally