Ethno politics or unconscious bias!

The results of the recent general elections have raised a lot of passions especially around the voting behaviour of the so called ‘Hindu Belt’, and this is no different since 1967.

In any democracy, elections translate and reflect the interests of individuals, families, groups  and communities through the medium of political parties or alliances; elections are not about our needs or wishes, it’s about our interests,  the interests of our localities , our communities, the interests of our country. So, we vote for the political organisations that best reflect those interests and aspirations that we have. That’s why we are presented candidates we better identify with, having interests we share and in whom we most trust; and they would best reflect the demographics of the day.

That’s why we are presented with, ‘programmes gouvernementales’ and ‘projets de société’ so we could respond to and identify with. Our voting behaviour is the result of a combination of all these, we answer collectively to all these elements of their electoral strategy thrown at us during the campaign. And believe you me, all the mainstream parties have and practice the same strategies, with some nuances.

So, if you got it wrong, it’s no point crying wolf and blame us for your blunder!

‘Dimunn lakanpayn pa kon voter!’

Since 1976 I have been organically involved in elections campaigns and post-election analysis, and always the stereotypical slogan coming from the losing camp is that ‘ lakanpayn pa kon voter’. Let’s have a look at the ethnic dynamics present during the past electoral campaign, and this across the three main political groups.

Prior to the elections, the MMM always had the opportunity to join either of the two alliances and chose not to because they would not want to be the junior partner. To their credit, they decided to do it alone ‘seul contre tous’ with Paul Berenger as prospective PM for 5 years, not even a shared pmship.

The MMM further presented their front constitutional bench of eight constituting of Berenger, Kasenally, Navarre, Uteem, Gunness, Baloomoody, Bhagwan and Ponoosamy. They decided to offer the electorate predominantly an ‘alliance des minorités’, which to be honest has always been their underlying thinking and strategy. With the expectation that the MSM and Labour vote could be split, it did not seem an altogether crazy proposition, they could still at least theoretically hope for the best.

To make this strategy even clearer, the MMM went even further and decided quite uncharacteristically to present a ‘minority’ candidate in No5, No6 and No10 thus reinforcing their message to minority voters. And that message was received 5/5, just look at the way the votes went to MMM candidates among the MMM supporters in the following circonscriptions:

No5: Ah Foo – Seeruttun= +3.2%

No6: Lamy – Beejan =+5%

No10: Melanie- Koonjul =+2,5%

No12: Apollon – Pertab =+5,7%

No14: Toulouse-Jugurnauth=+3%

No16: Joanna B- Gunness =+15%

No17: Paul – Manohur =+6%

And the same strategy got Paul Berenger to claim back his first spot in No19 and a 3-0 in No20.

So, we can safely say that, in a major way, the ethnic strategy of the MMM was a success! Yes it did not lead them to win the elections and gain a majority, but it did at least reinforce Paul Berenger’s leadership and may have paved the way to a seamless succession pathway.

What politique de rupture!

Since their flagrant defeat of 2014, the faithful base of the Ptr has been shouting from all roofs that they want a change of leadership. The exposed personal life of Navin Ramgoolam (NCR)has unearthed some moral attributes and financial irregularities that do not play well in his favour to challenge the integrity of PM Pravind Jugnauth, especially after being emphatically vindicated by the Privy Council. So, in reply NCR has come out with a slogan that seemed to have quieten the Labour rank and file: ‘politique de rupture’. What does it mean? Nobody seems to know except maybe NCR himself. Rupture from what, not his personal way of life which he strongly defended in an interview given to l’Express few days before the elections. He did very well in fighting his corner on issues of his carat, class and expensive taste of life.

So, where was the rupture?

This was answered just days before the nomination day when he announced that he would be candidate in No10. It’s only then that we got to know, silly us, that the rupture had nothing to do with governance or integrity, he was in rupture with No5, with Triolet-Pamplemousses. That same No5 that epitomise the very foundation of le travaillisme, the block from which SSR fought for independence, the Labour base for successive elections both for SSR and NCR, the No5 that held a PMship for at least 6 mandates. The underlying message to No5 was ‘I don’t trust you’, ‘I don’t need you anymore ‘, ‘I am turning my back on you,’  The rupture was from the Labour base and the electorate got the message very clearly, and that message was very quickly subsumed in what some people refer to ‘the hindu belt’ and they will reciprocate few days later.

It’s no point trying to make a clever point in Ecroignard, joking about a priest advising him to migrate from the place of SSR Samadhi. As some people put it, it sounded more like it was a traiteur finn bez so kas!

So NCR migrates from the emblematic No5, and where does he land, No6? Oh no he doesn’t. No7? Oh no he doesn’t. No8? Oh no he doesn’t. No9? Oh no he doesn’t. No11? Oh no he doesn’t. He migrates to No10, where the demographics of the circonscription is such that should there be a ‘couper-trancer’, he could have a chance on a 2-1.

Maybe that’s the reason he chose the Plaine Verte to come out with his infamous ‘Katori’, thinking he could lure some sympathetic votes in Bel Air.

It’s too  late Shakeel Mohammed worrying to add ‘l’eau au moulin’ of the MSM and the PM, l’eau has already been delivered in the katori by NCR himself at the No3 rally.

This outright insult any respect for the dead and dying may have secured some seats in Nos2,3and 15,  it without any doubt costs NCR his election, a majority in the National Assembly, but also maybe his leadership of the Labour Party.

Conclusion

I feel reassured and relieved that in the 3cornered fight between ‘rupture’, ‘seul’ and ‘ensam’, the electorate chose the more positive and healthy option of togetherness, unity and inclusion and rejected the negativity of loneliness and rupture.

It augurs well for the psychological health of the nation!

Rather than weaponising the so called ‘hindu belt’ to justify any elections defeat, our political elite would get much more if they could hear what the electorate is telling them, respond accordingly and answer their aspirations. The votes have responded to your strategy as they have always done  and if you did not choose the right one, they are not to blame. Nobody should expect to see a different result by always repeating the same thing.

Change your outlook, change your mindset, change your players, change your strategy.

That’s what Pravind did!

Vijay Ram

13.11.19

London.