All political concepts evolve, but a political concept cannot evolve against its birth unless it self-destructs.With the invention of « laïcité mauricienne » clearly designed to justify the political interference of the Church into the affairs of the State, laïcité re-grows its ugly head like a Hydra.

During the European Years of Enlightenment [1745-1785], French philosophers borrowed the term laic from the Catholic Church and invented the politics of laïcité in order to rid France of the grip of the Catholic Church on the State.Their philosophy has been credited with removing Europe from the Dark Ages caused by the Catholic Church (l'obscurantisme catholique).Laïcité is a French exception and is not strictly translatable in English.While a « laïque » is « celui qui n'appartient pas au clergé », and a « laïcat » is « l'ensemble des laïques dans l'Église catholique », in politics a laïque (ou laïc) is a partisan of laïcité which is a system « qui exclut les Églises de l'exercice du pouvoir politique ou administratif, et en particulier de l'organisation de l'enseignement public » [Ref. Petit Larousse], hence the term « Séparation de l'Église de l'État ».Here, Église is a term which does not necessarily mean the physical place of worship for Christians.It denotes any religious belief in a divinity.Therefore, the concept of laïcité has been imposed on other religions without the consent of their relevant authorities.It has also been exported to (often with violence), or imported into, other mainly French-speaking countries, including Mauritius which is being used as a "laboratoire de la laïcité". [Ref. Khalil Elahee (aka Abu Abdallah)].

'Mauritian laicity'
The official language of Mauritius is English and not French, and the French political concept of laïcité has no accurate equivalence in English.The nearest translation is "secularism" for which the proper French word is « sécularisme ».While a laïque system denotes the secularisation of the state, not all secular states are laïques.The fundamental difference is that a laïque system does not recognise people's religions, cultures and races, while a secular system does.A secular system also accepts religious symbols, such as the crucifix, the Sikh turban, the sindour, the hijaab in the public sphere while laïcité does not, for example in France.The English language sometimes uses the term LAICITY to denote the French concept.However, the protagonists of laïcité prefer to write in French in order to preserve the French terminology, and their allegiance to France.

Having lost the battle to brand the Mauritian Republic as a laïque State, the protagonists have now invented the term « LAÏCITÉ MAURICIENNE » which they argue is 'tolerant' and 'recognises' the various religions, cultures and races of the Mauritian people.Now, this is a total contradiction of terms.Can one make Zionism tolerant just by coining the expression 'Mauritian Zionism'?This is what Nazim Esoof and Khalil Elahee (aka Abu Abdallah) are effectively telling readers when they come up with their 'laïcité mauricienne'. [Ref. Nazim Esoof, l'Express dated 23rd February 2008, « LAÏCITÉ MAURICIENNE : La tolérance comme antidote », and, Abu Abdallah, le Mauricien dated 29 February 2008, « LE PORT DU "TIOUSS" - Notre priorité nationale »].In support of his case, Mr Nazim Esoof even quotes Mr Homa Mungapen of the Bahaï faith which, although having its roots in Islam, is regarded by most Muslims as heretic with its headquarters in the Zionist (Apartheid) State of Israel.

The Hydra of laïcité
Through such terminological inventions, laïcité has become a Hydra! The main pillar of laïcité is the « Séparation de l'Église de l'État ».Yet the protagonists have not invoked this concept against a priest meddling in politics. But they used the subsequent (February 2008) discrimination against the 15 year-old student Ruquaya's salwar ('tiousse' in patois) at the Eastern College of Flacq as an excuse to invoke their so-called 'tolerant Mauritian laicity'. The direct consequence of this newfound 'tolerance' in the intolerant laïcité is the legitimisation of the political moves of Priest Grégoire who is planning more mobilisation for the Labour Day celebrations on 1st May 2008. Surely, the wearing of a salwar under a college uniform for religious reasons invokes religious tolerance in a secular country and is neither comparable to nor compatible with priests meddling in government affairs. It is most strange that, while being silent on political mobilisation by priests, Messrs Esoof and Abdallah invoke acceptance, under the hoax of 'laïcité mauricienne', of a religious symbol in the totally separate and unconnected case of the salwar and still fails to mention such mobilisation. This is callous and abominable omission and a pure application of reverse psychology.

Self-destruction
All political concepts evolve, but a political concept cannot evolve against its birth unless it self-destructs.A belief in freedom cannot evolve into a belief in slavery or the creations of slavery unless it is a rejection of freedom.« Mauritian multiculturalism » is a rejection of laïcité in all its forms, which Mauritius never adopted anyway.'Laicité mauricienne' is a meaningless term and a hoax. It is the « pluriculture mauricienne » which has always existed and which must always be preserved.By trying to manipulate the French politics and imposing it on Mauritians through the backdoor in the form of « laïcité mauricienne », Francophiles are doing even greater harm to the cherished values of Mauritian multiculturalism, the fabric which holds the Mauritian society together.

Conclusion
If the political moves of certain priests are legitimised in this way, then Mauritians should also look forward to political mobilisations by Pundits and Imams alike as all faiths are part and parcel of a vibrant living State which can never be laïque unless it is merely a conceptual (or dead) State.However, religious authorities and their Priests can be prevented from interfering in the affairs of a secular State (État séculier) through political mobilisations in the streets because such a State recognises the existence of religious faiths in any divinity, and has put in place an appropriate structure in which any concerns can be lodged.Such a structure is not supposed to exist under laicity (laïcité). Hence, if clerics wish to go beyond the boundaries of this structure and provoke political mobilisations, they should retire from priesthood and form a political party of their own while still claiming an affiliation with religious authorities. We have such parties in Europe.

M Rafic Soormally

London