“What is clear is that the government is in free fall and that it is losing popularity; it has squandered all the capital of sympathy that it had after the election. People are dissatisfied and frustrated. The launching of the economy has not taken place yet and the problem of unemployment is worse than it used to be, so a by-election will be very tough for the government.”

“I think that Dayal should have been arrested. As for Lutchmeenaraidoo, we are the political party which has put the most pressure for him to resign.”

 “We do not agree that because you are in the opposition you should thrive on demagogy.”

Since the Mouvement Patriotique broke away from the Mouvement Militant Mauricien, your role in the opposition has not been very clear. What kind of opposition are you?

In fact, we have made it clear on many occasions that the Mouvement Patriotique (MP) is an opposition party. When we left the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) to create another party, we have always made it clear that there was no agenda on our part to join the ranks of the government.

But you didn’t miss any opportunity to rub the government the right way in the hope that they ask you to join them, did you?

That is not true. In fact, we decided to dissociate ourselves from the MMM to show that one can be in the opposition but at the same time operate in a different way to the traditional way that the MMM has been operating. We have made it clear that we are here to oppose the government, but when the government comes up with or proposes something that we think is beneficial or of interest to the population and the electorate, we will support the government.

It so happens, though, that everything that the government has done, you found nothing wrong with.

No, that is not true.

It is true. When the government does something wrong, you keep quiet or at best react in a very mild way.

Let me enumerate to you the many differences we have expressed with the government since the creation of the MP. We denounced the government, for example, when it started to unleash the operation leve paké allez and the dismissal of people because they had been recruited before the election. We also disagreed openly with Minister of Health Anil Gayan’s policy to discontinue the dialogue with NGOs actively working to rehabilitate drug addicts. We also denounced it when it used the police as an instrument to put pressure and oppress people from the opposition.

Which cases did you denounce?

I strongly condemned the arrest and the search of the attorney PazhanyThandrayen upon his arrival at the airport. In this context, we praised the courageous stand of the Mauritius Bar Council on this issue. In the case of the allegations against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), I publicly reminded the commissioner of police that he should operate within the parameters of the powers entrusted to him by the constitution. I warned him that the police should not be used as an instrument in the hands of the executive to oppress opponents.

Well, we didn’t hear you. Isn’t that unfortunate?

If you didn’t hear me, I am sorry, but I can show you the press conferences where we have asked the government not to use the police to oppress people from the opposition.

Do you think the government is intentionally using the police to oppress the opposition?

Well, it is the temptation of any government I think.

Is this government just like any other or are they using the police in a much more abusive way?

I cannot measure but a wrong cannot correct another wrong. This government may have exceeded the previous one, I am not denying that, but what I am telling you is that whether the number is less, equal or more, whenever there is one case of unjustified arrest or oppression, I think it should be denounced.

In parliament, do you side with the opposition or with the government?

The MP is a party that is not linked to any of the political blocks. We don’t side with this one or the other. We have our independence. We consider ourselves to be a party which is independent, sovereign and which has no links to any political block. We don’t have any commitment to any other political party. So, the question of which side, which block we side with in the opposition, to us, is not the way to look at things. We have intervened in parliament on many bills. When we see that things are not as they should be, when we see that there are flaws in bills, we say so. Parliamentary Questions are asked and when we have to put supplementary questions to any minister, including the prime minister, we do so.

If you take the first session of parliament when it resumed last week, while the government was on the back foot because of all the scandals caused by several ministers, you were not interested in any of the scandals. You just made a nice suggestion and you smiled at the prime minister.

You are referring to the question I put to the prime minister.

You didn’t put a question. You made a suggestion.

First of all, I did not smile at the prime minister.

I would have smiled putting a nice suggestion like that.

No, no, no. I didn’t smile. Each of us has their own personality. I asked the prime minister whether he didn’t think that the law should be amended in order to withdraw the licence of somebody immediately when he has been tested positive. This is a question. It’s not a suggestion.

How does that embarrass the government?

It is a suggestion when you say “don’t you think?” It’s in the form of a question but it is a suggestion.

What about all the scandals, a minister of finance accused of fraud who has been sick for two months, another one heard on tape allegedly asking for a bribe. Even the prime minister said he had been shocked by what he heard. Everyone was shocked except the MP opposition?

I don’t know if you listened to our press conference. I can show you the notes.

I’m talking about parliament because I was there. I didn’t hear your voice. I didn’t hear anybody from the MP.

But there was no question about the minister of finance in parliament.

Well, precisely. Why not?

But you should pay attention towhat we say in press conferences. We have raised the issue more than three times since the Lutchmeenaraidoo affair, we have posted banners all over the country asking for his resignation. We are the only political party that has done that.

But how brave is that? Even the prime minister himself said he can’t rely on him anymore. So, you speak the same language as the government and in fact you wait until the prime minister speaks and then you say, ‘hear, hear’?

No, no, no. I’m sorry. It was only last Thursday that the prime minister had a go at Mr. Lutchmeenaraidoo. We started asking for his resignation four weeks ago.

What about Raj Dayal?

Today we had a go at him. We said that the police commissioner is not doing what he should have done. This is not good for the police.

What should he have done?

I think that Dayal should have been arrested. As for Lutchmeenaraidoo, we are the political party which has put the most pressure for him to resign.

How come this pressure through banners did not translate into pressure in the national assembly, when there were questions about these two people?

There was no question about Lutchmeenaraidoo.

When there was a question about Dayal, you were totally silent, weren’t you?

In fact, we expected the Private Notice Question (PNQ) to be about the case of Lutchmeenaraidoo.

Why didn’t you put one?

I think that a question about Lutchmeenaraidoo should have more appropriately dealt with through a PNQ.

What prevents you from putting a parliamentary question about that since the PNQ was about other issues?

As I’ve told you, what is important is to express our discontent, our disapproval of what is happening in other cases. We are satisfied that we have done it publicly. In terms of banners and in the four or five recent press conferences that we have organised, we said that we did not agree in any way with any cover up in both cases.

That is what the prime minister said as well. So what you are telling me is that you are a member of the opposition but you agree with everything that the prime minister is doing, are you?

We said that before the prime minister said it. As I just told you, in the case of Lutchmeenaraidoo, it’s only this week that the prime minister started to comment on that situation. We have been commenting on the situation it for four weeks.

Do you think that these two people should have stepped down? That the prime minister should have made them step down as members of parliament?

I think they should have certainly stepped down as ministers and we are surprised that Lutchmeenaraidoo has not done it so far. Now, whether they should leave parliament or not, I suppose the prime minister has not asked them to resign as members of parliament because of political reasons.

What do you mean by political reasons?

I suppose they don't want to go into a by-election. In my analysis, the prime minister does not want the country to be destabilised by by-elections or the possibility of losing a by-election.

As a seasoned politician, what do you think would happen if there was a by-election?

It is difficult to say. What is clear is that the government is in free fall and that it is losing popularity; it has squandered all the capital of sympathy that it had after the election. People are dissatisfied and frustrated. The launching of the economy has not taken place yet and the problem of unemployment is worse than it used to be, so a by-election will be very tough for the government.

Would you field a candidate if there was a by-election?

It will depend. We have not thought about it yet but we will certainly reflect on that possibility.

I mean, as a member of the opposition, if there is a by-election, isn't it normal for you to jump on the opportunity to show you have a following out there?

We will certainly participate in the by-election.

By fielding a candidate?

Most probably.

What would prevent you from fielding a candidate?

The possibility of not dividing the vote of the opposition.

Would you side with the opposition then?

I think it depends on when the by-election takes place but another possibility is still there to join forces with the opposition parties.

Which party will you join?

Whatever party because in a situation where the government should be given a lesson, if you are genuinely an opposition party and you want to drive that message across, I think the possibility of joining forces with the opposition parties is a reality.

Would you join the MMM or the Labour Party?

I am not saying I would join the MMM. What I am saying is that in a specific situation, there may be the possibility that all opposition parties join forces against the government in the interest of the country and the population.

So what you are saying is that you are prepared to support the MMM and the Labour Party so that the government is given a good lesson?

This possibility exists but so does the possibility of fielding a separate candidate or not participating at all in the election. It is premature at this stage to say what the exact move of the MP is going to be.

What about the option of joining and supporting the government just for this by-election?

I think it is going to be extremely difficult for us to do that because we are an opposition party. Why should we support the government?

Because you have always wanted to do so and this may be the first and perhaps the last opportunity you will ever get.

You are speculating. I challenge you to show me any statement I and or any other leader of my party has made to the effect that we wanted to join the government.

Ok, here it is: You said on one of the private radios, “It would not be immoral for us to join the government”.

I said that in a specific context. It was a hypothetical assumption. What I wanted to say was that, at one time, the MMM was with the MSM in an alliance called the Alliance Remake. So the MMM would itself have been in power with the MSM. It was in that context that I said it. You know, in Mauritius, people are used to analysing and looking at politics from a polarised perspective. On the one side there is government and on the other there is opposition. So if you do not agree with the government, people consider that you should be in the opposition. We do not agree that it should always be that way. We think that there could be a third way. It does not mean that when you are against the government, you should be in the opposition or vice versa. Secondly, in the interest of democracy, I think there is nothing wrong with the blooming of political parties. At one time in our history, we decided to leave the MMM to create a new party, so what's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong. What is wrong is that we voted you with the MMM. We did not vote you in to go and sit on your own and be a ‘loyal’ opposition.

You voted me under a Labour/MMM platform. And this platform itself has split.

You were in the MMM when we voted you in.

What do you mean to say? That I should stay with the MMM even though I do not agree with them?

Well you agreed with the party until you lost the election.

I have the right to show my disagreement. I’m not the only one. Nearly 50% of the MMM MPs left the MMM. There was no agenda to leave and join the government. We are still in this position.

That is not through lack of trying.

Nobody prevented us from joining the government if we wanted to. Do you think they would have refused if we wanted to join them as backbenchers?

Did they invite you to join them?

Of course not and we made no approach in that direction either.

But you did make it very clear that there was nothing immoral about you as a party joining the government.

You have to understand one thing. We do not agree that because you are in the opposition you should thrive on demagogy. We are doing politics differently. We don’t believe in walkouts for futile reasonseither.

Do you agree with the way the speaker conducts the affairs of the House?

No! I am telling you publicly I do not agree with everything that the speaker has been doing.

What do you mean?

I mean there have been occasions where the speaker, according to me, has given certain rulings that I don’t agree with. She is new to the chair and to serve better as the speaker is a long, drawn-out process and probably she’ll be a better speaker in the years to come. For example, last Tuesday, she should have asked the prime minister to withdraw the words ‘shut up’.

She said she did not hear it.

Well she should have heard it because I heard it and I am on the other side completely. I think, you know, a speaker is the symbol of fairness in the House.

What do you think of the Pay Research Bureau(PRB) which has just come out?

I think the government should have made an additional effort vis-à-vis those at the lower rungs of the ladder.

But the PRB already entails the disbursement of Rs3 billion! Are you saying the government should have spent more? How much more?

I don’t know how much more money should have been dished out but I am really not impressed with what has been offered to the general workers, for example. An additional effort should have been made. The latest World Bank report has just highlighted the inequality in the salary structures. This should have been an opportunity to lift up those at the bottom of the ladder.

Civil servants in general are still paid more than their counterparts in the private sector, aren’t they?

Not those at the bottom of the ladder. It is true that the World Bank talks about the discrepancy between the private and the public sector workers and the government should have seen to it that the wages of those in the private sector too are increased. There are remuneration orders that have not been updated for years. I hope the minister of labour looks urgently into this discrepancy to achieve the right equilibrium between the workers in the private sector and those in the public one.

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, subscribe to Weekly for as little as Rs110 a month. Free delivery to your door. Contact us: touria.prayag@lexpress.mu