Lifelong Militant Explains His Party's Last Defeat

We lost votes in the following manner:

1. Ramgoolam's face was said to resemble something else: -4%

2. Gregoire issuing voting instructions that were not exactly neutral: -4%

3. The suggestion that Beebeejaun go out like cattle: -3%

4. Former President Uteem climbing on May 1st platform: -1%

Total -12%. So that the MMM could have received 55% of the votes and around 80% of the seats. And Berenger could have been PM for five whole years. The fact that Ramgoolam won obviously had -- contrary to what the MMM suggests when it loses elections -- little to do with the skin colour of moustas. And here is my take on the 2005 defeat.

The PM must already be grinning about the thought that at least two former Presidents could be on one political platform on Labour Day.

Gregoire is Not La Cause Creole's Best Friend

That's what I am concluding when I look back at the statements he's been making over the last couple of years. See, he once gave an interview where he said that the future is in Finance and offshore etc and that the creoles are going to have a hard time because they are not prepared for these kind of jobs. That's about the last thing you want to say to the people whose lives you want to improve. Besides the facts tell another story.

He also wanted a quota of 35% for creoles in the public sector. Guess we should ban all entry qualifications and just hire people based on their ethnicity. And what do we do about people of mixed parentage? Do we flip a coin to decide? A 35% quota may also be impracticable if creoles in their overwhelming majority prefer to work in the private sector. And do we send me instead of Stephan Buckland for the 100-metre dash if a corresponding quota for creoles in sports is used up?

And he said he was sad the kind of treatment that Sithanen was getting because the guy is competent and has showed his mettle during the tough times the country went through. With all due respect Jocelyn, I think you should stick to your prayers.

Finally he claims that the Federation des Creoles Mauriciens (FCM) is an apolitical movement. Really? Then why do you go around and making statements like the bleu-blanc-rouge alliance is not in the interest of the minorities? Or that you will not give any voting directives to your members but that the electoral program of the MMM has a lot in common with the FCM's own manifesto?