Out of sync
More power to voters should be at the centre of our concerns.
Of the many cases of quiproquo that we have witnessed in politics, the present situation might be the most glaring of them all. In a year scarred by scandals, where the dearth of integrity of our governing leaders became so apparent that even highly politicised institutions finally started acting, talks of the introduction of the PR system sound sorely out of place.
For most of 2011, people have vehemently denounced the misuse of power. Clear in their rejection of the opaqueness surrounding the Medpoint issue. The latter, the culmination of years of shadiness in political spheres confirmed that power was effectively centralised in the hands of a few. Then, how could it be that instead of empowering citizens through direct democracy and counter the hegemony of parties, we find ourselves trapped in a debate on the need for Proportional Representation. Somehow, the right message never got to those wielding power…
Issues with Proportional Representation
What we should ask ourselves is whether the introduction of the proposed amended electoral system would cure the most pertinent ills of the present one. Would greater accountability from MPs be gleaned out of it? Would it boost the number of competent figures and ensure that local concerns are taken into consideration? Would it help severe ties between corporate powerhouses and political factions? David Cameron, in an article for the New Politics series in The Guardian, highlighted that;
“Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers would choose a government on the basis of secret backroom deals.”
Electoral Reform, the one which is needed, would scrap the BLS system, cure the political funding mess and ensure a greater balance between the Legislative and the Executive. PR is certainly not at the heart of pressing concerns for it would further subdue voter representation to party representation. Farcical it has been these last few weeks; People and parties with dimming political futures managing a last hurrah by making allegations of all kinds and belittling their former colleagues. And what about the people of this country? Should we leave buzz-seekers to cater for their needs or should serious members of parties finally own up to their responsibilities?
The case for direct democracy in Mauritius
The need for greater involvement of voters in the democratic life of our country is a must. If referendums on an occasional basis are a sign of a healthy democracy, then Mauritius as a democratic state has been in the coma for long enough to be declared dead. The ideal model would be one in the lines of the Swiss system where citizens are empowered enough to have their say on non-recurring expenses above a certain sum of money and can initiate new legislations and have the authority to amend laws.
Even more importantly, an open society would stimulate public discussion and would offer citizens the platform where they can vigorously debate government policies. This contrasts with the superficial democracy we presently have where involvement is limited to one voting expedition every five years and decisions are in the hands of a few political leaders. This greater participation can only be the harbinger for a country where there are effective checks and balances and corruption would sizeably reduce.
Politicians want an à la carte electoral reform. The people need control over their collective destiny.
Citoyen Engaz Toi!
Chetan Ramchurn
0 comments:
Post a Comment