Comment on the blog : "Oui, l’électeur est intelligent !"

There are two plausible explanations for the failure of negotiations between the Labour Party and the MMM to conclude an electoral alliance for the next elections.

The first explanation is based on the premise that the Labour leader was never interested in coming to an agreement with the MMM and all that he wanted was to engage the latter in some kind of dialogue with no meaningful conclusion. While talking to the PM, Bérenger was compelled to silence his party’s criticism of the government and consequentially his troops were in a complete disarray on the ground, being unable to rationalize their party’s sudden change of behavior and incapable of responding to the broadsides coming from the PMSD and the MSM, who are both longing for a revival of the “bleu-blanc-rouge alliance”.

As a matter of fact, the PM wanted to demobilize the opposition in the run-up to Labour Day in order to pre-empt any embarrassing PNQs about law-and-order breakdown and other vexing issues when the Legislative Assembly resumes its sitting (March 23rd). While hoodwinking the MMM into believing in the false hope of a Labour-MMM alliance, the PM was preparing to deal the final blow to the opposition by announcing the date of the next elections on May 1st. That would have caught the MMM flat-footed and its troops would have found it difficult to get back on track after having played the role of the “loyal opposition” for so long. And the PM would have emerged as the only choice in the face of a hopelessly weak and fissured opposition.

However, by putting an end to the negotiations, the MMM has called the PM’s bluff. Who outsmarted whom in this whole process, time will tell. The PM’s tactics is disingenuous at best, deceptive at worst. For now, we can rest assured that the MMM will play its rightful role as the official opposition in the House, holding the government to account, debating critical issues such as law and order, capital punishment, education reform, etc., and making parliamentary democracy work finally.

The second explanation is based on the premise that both parties were willing to coalesce again but could not agree on a common platform. For the sake of its credibility, the MMM could not have agreed to an alliance that would have vindicated Labour’s governance after having deployed a sound critique of government’s policy for so many years. The MMM wanted to see in the electoral manifesto significant commitments such as revamping the law-and-order regulatory framework, initiating holistic educational reform in lieu of piece-meal reforms, introducing electoral reform with a code of conduct for the next elections, cleaning out the institutions badly bruised by cronyism and corruption, and democratizing the air waves with private television.

The PM wanted to hear nothing of that “reform crap”. All that he wanted was to conclude an alliance that would guarantee him a three-quarter majority at the next elections with the absolute power to amend the Constitution for doing such scary things as compulsory acquisition of assets with nominal compensation, putting some control over over-zealous media that dare to criticize the government, setting up public corporations to run parts of government business outside Parliament’s scrutiny and appointing political nominees without regard for meritocracy. Actually the PM wanted to dictate the terms of the agreement, but the MMM has had enough self-respect to voice its differences.

The failure of the MMM-Labour negotiations is a blessing in disguise for the country. Ultimately it will have saved the country from an elected dictatorship that would have done away with the checks and balances in our present system, including a vigilant opposition in the House. On a balance of probabilities, it is most likely that the next electoral match will be between the MMM and the “bleu-blanc-rouge alliance”. The MMM should present itself as the progressive alternative to a conservative alliance that is bent on perpetuating the concentration of wealth, patronage, the culture of entitlement and privilege for a few against the broader national interest. It all boils down to a clash of values.

Democrat