One of the greatest lie ever told is that democracy is “government of the people, for the people, by the people”.  The concept of a “people” exists only at times of tragedy or international competitions.  Past these, the population devolves into “tribes” anxious to preserve and protect its own.  In the United States, for example, the right and the left are now in a “take no prisoners” war mode.  There are few opportunities for inter party collaboration because the Democrats and the Republicans have such different visions of where to take the country that they might as well be leading two different countries.

In Mauritius, there is no philosophy of governing to divide the population.  There are a few major issues where the parties disagree but when push comes to shove, they are no impediment to working together.  Which begs the question: What divides the population in Mauritius?

On the surface, ethnicity and religion seem to be the most important barriers.  In reality, all major parties have long recognized that there is no benefit in a purely communal identity.  What has mattered more is the bond that the leader of each party has created with its electorate.  Navin Ramgoolam has very adroitly exploited the sentimental value of SSR in the history of the country and managed to retain the loyalty of generations of supporters of old Labour.  Similarly, Paul Bérenger retains the sentimental attachment of the old militant family. The PMSD and the MSM are pale imitations of their old self because of the failures of their new leaders

In working towards a new political dispensation, NR and PRB are counting on the sentimental ties of their electorate, which combined will account for possibly more than three fourths of all votes cast.  What if they are wrong?

Even though the Labour Party and the MMM probably have no major policy disagreement, they are two very distinct families, with different sense of themselves.  The MMM thinks of itself as the party of technocrats who knows how to run the government and makes things work.  While it is true that economics matter to everyone, the Labour Party has been more a party with an eye on the cultural aspect of everyday existence.

I suspect that these two views are not very compatible.  Bringing them together may seem like a great opportunity for these two parties’ leaders to change the political game but overcoming sentimental incompatibilities is much harder than removing rational barriers.

If an alliance is indeed formed, it is very likely that there will be a large number of supporters of each party who will find themselves unable to set aside their unease to vote for the new coalition.

Despite his age, SAJ is still a formidable politician. If he decides to retake the helm of his party and bring in a fresh new team, possibly marginalizing his own son (not very likely but who knows?), the year could be full of surprises. The possibility of a new political force emerging out of the blue cannot be ruled out either.