Quelques consignes de DWM pour les municipales du 4 mai 25
Appel pour que cette campagne électorale municipale se déroule dans la paix, le respect des autres et dans un esprit de responsabilité. Mais surtout sur des promesses d’actions et de projets qui amélioreront la qualité de vie des citadins appelés aux urnes le 4 mai.
L’objectif des élections régionales est de permettre à l’électorat de désigner des représentants pour la bonne gestion de la ville, son développement, mais surtout pour des facilités aux citoyens pour une vie meilleure. Les conseillers choisis et désignés par l’électorat souverain formeront la municipalité du jour et administreront la ville en notre nom. Ceux de l’opposition devront assurer le rôle de chiens de garde, proposer de nouveaux projets techniques et urbains et défendre les intérêts du peuple, nos intérêts.
Promesses et réalisations. Les électeurs doivent évaluer le potentiel et la compétence des candidats. Ils doivent voter pour ceux que, en leur âme et conscience, ils considèrent comme les meilleurs candidats, sans tenir compte d’aucune autre considération. Votez pour les meilleurs candidats seulement.
Aux candidats : réfléchissez avant de parler. Vous devrez walk your talk, car beaucoup de citoyens, dont nous, sont engagés dans un processus de marke garde !
La nécessité de conscientiser les électeurs se fait sentir, afin que ceux-ci arrivent à bien connaître les candidats et leurs programmes. Avant leurs votes, chaque électeur doit réfléchir et analyser le potentiel des candidats et leurs programmes et seulement après passer au vote. Platon rejetait une certaine démocratie sur la base que les citoyens votent sur la base de leurs impulsions au lieu de privilégier le bien commun.
Is Mauritius miracle losing its sheen?
Context: According to The Economist of 24th April 2025, “Mauritius is losing its sheen” (Week-end of 27 April)
Comments:The article of The Economist surveys the political, economic, and social situation of Mauritius and assesses the damage caused to our image in the international scene through years of bad governance by the previous government.
The article recalls briefly the history of Mauritius since the colonisation period, the gradual increase in population due to the advent of slaves from Africa and the indentured labour from India, the political struggle for Independence and the efforts of successive governments to diversify our economy and modernise the public infrastructure while maintaining a welfare society. The journalist, after dwelling on our success story, describes the serious erosion of good governance and grossmismanagement of the economy and law and order situation caused by the Pravind Jugnauth government.
How will the new government fix all the wrongs and prevent the country from losing further its sheen? Commenting on the situation in the same article, Rama Sithanen, governor of the Bank of Mauritius, says that “Mauritius is like the Queen Park Rangers which performs well in the lower divisions, but finds it hard to make it to the very top”.
A heavy responsibility lies on the shoulders of the new government. Its six-month performance has been assessed in various circles, press and social media. The public expect quick decision making, followed by timely implementation. The long delay in constituting important boards and committees is a source of frustration. Furthermore, some appointments have been sharply criticised. On the other hand, the government has been active in several sectors like education, health and environment and has managed to pass a number of important bills in Parliament.
How will the government create more dynamism? It hopes that the series of measures to be announced in the budget speech will boost the economy and inject a high dose of confidence in the population. But, at the same time, the international environment has been rocked by the tariff war unleashed by Donald Trump, thus increasing the vulnerability of small economies like ours.
Democracy Watch, bearing in mind that complex issues cannot be resolved urgently, hopes that the government will come up with creative solutions which will appeal to the population and boost its morale for hard work and discipline. We need to harness all our efforts to prevent Mauritius from losing its sheen.
Ethics in society
Let us be clear. Ethical standards are something that all of us can promote, whatever our religion and even those who have no religion. They may be connected with religious dogmas and beliefs but they are more universal.
Let us be clear. Ethical behaviour, essential for a peaceful society, is something that all of us can practice, whatever our religion and even those who have no religion. Ethics relate to how we behave, be it in public and private life. For example, we can all agree that using violence, selling drugs, dishonest business dealings, pursuing financial gain at the expense of others, abusing one’s position and corruption amongst other things are deeply unethical. We can expect our leaders to set an example, but the problem lies not just with our leaders. The woman who tells a political candidate she is not voting for him because he won’t or can’t provide her son with a job is unethical. The person who draws his or her salary without working properly is unethical. Work, whether as a teacher, a doctor, a politician or as a labourer, has vocational aspects it has responsibilities as well as privileges.
As recent events have illustrated, some people, from the highest to the lowest in society, seem oblivious to ethical factors. There will always be “black sheep” in most families and societies but it is the sheer scale of this that is frightening. How this has come about would, no doubt, require a book. But, put simply, there are certain factors in our society that particularly contribute to this situation. It includes the perception that political, religious and community leaders are concerned more with their personal advantages than with the members of society they are meant to serve. It comes from the feeling that some people can get away with anything. Political cronyism and ethnic considerations are major factors. There is all too often a clear absence of meritocracy. The resulting perceptions permeate down through society so that, to take a banal example, one begins to wonder if someone imagines they can get away with murder (literally and figuratively) because they voted for the party in power at the time of their crime.
To give some examples of a flagrant lack of ethics, politics is not about pleasing potential voters and key interest groups, but in serving the country and providing leadership. Teaching is not about the extra income from private tuition but the privileged position of educating our youngsters for tomorrow. Practising medicine is not pushing patients towards private treatment to earn more money. Business is not just about increasing stakeholder wealth but also about genuinely valuing employees and offering customers quality goods and services at a fair price. Journalism is not about distorting the truth to suit one’s own point of view but of providing readers with information and informed comment. Religious leadership is not about seeking advantages for a particular group of people but of providing ethical guidance, spiritual help, and support to individuals in facing life’s problems.
We face a society-wide problem. Nor are we alone in this, as most other societies in varying ways and to varying degrees face similar problems. But it is in the society in which we live that we must address the problems and look for solutions (from The Call of the Clarion by Ian Ernest, Bishop of Mauritius, 9th February 2011).
Hé Joe ! Qui doit nommer si PM fait pas l’affaire ?
Texte : Joe Lesjongard : La National Agency for Drug Control aurait dû être indépendante ? Cela est impossible avec un président nommé par le Premier ministre. Le chef de l’Opposition n’imagine pas celle-là allant à l’encontre de la volonté de celui-ci (Le Mauricien du 16.4.2025)
Commentaire de Democracy Watch : Aurait-il dit cela avant les législatives du 10 novembre 2024, qu’il aurait été plus crédible. Mettons cela sur le compte d’un baroud parlementaire. Mais cela ne lui fait guère honneur. Espérons surtout que, si Changement il y a, nous pourrions retrouver des hauts fonctionnaires et autres nominés de haut rang, capables, comme leurs plus illustres prédécesseurs, de dire « non » aux présents locataires de l’Hôtel du Gouvernement, si leurs diktats les contraignent à des mesures que leur conscience réprouve. Mieux vaut aller au paradis limogé plutôt que d’aller glorieusement en enfer avec une conscience trahie, muselée.
Mais qui doit nommer si le Premier ministre ne fait pas l’affaire ? Democracy Watch a sa petite idée sur la question et ne craint guère de la rappeler pour l’énième fois. Nous sommes pour la mise sur pied d’une commission permanente de recrutement des grands décisionnaires de l’administration gouvernementale. En font partie, pour un mandat de cinq ans, des membres nommés par (1) le Premier ministre, (2) le chef de l’Opposition, (3) le président de la République, (4) la cheffe juge, (5) le Speaker de l’Assemblée nationale, (6) le président du principal syndicat de hauts fonctionnaires, (7) le coordinateur du secteur privé. À charge pour eux de recruter les meilleurs cadres et experts, devant leur rendre compte des positions adoptées aux moments les plus décisifs.
DWM Team
