The comments of many politicians these days reek of cynicism. Not that there is anything wrong with being cynical. Aren’t we all? The problem is that this extreme cynicism is diverting the debate going on at this very important time in our history into a chaotic, gross, destructive and dangerous game. In politics, we will never tire of repeating it, there is no altruism and principles change to suit the audience. It is a game of power and interests and one should never underestimate the motivations and ulterior motives of some of those trying to lead the debate today or the reasons behind their sudden attack of conscience, which by the way, comes a bit late in the day.

In the middle of this chaos and self-interest, as citizens we should keep our eye on the ball. We have to focus on the real issues rather than on personalities. The debate today is about three things, the most urgent of which is eliminating the mention of one’s ethnic belonging when standing for an election. We hasten to concede that writing laws will not change mentalities but the symbolism behind this is important. It is perhaps worth reminding our readers of what Rezistans ek Alternativ’s fight is about. It isn’t about eliminating the Best Loser System (BLS) altogether. According to their very own petition, “the absence of categorisation of candidates does not affect the operation of the BLS, for which it was designed, as the only consequence for a candidate without categorisation would be to lose his entitlement to be returned under this system.” So, their fight is about having a fifth category for those who wish to opt out of the BLS – which would otherwise continue for those who want to benefit from it. This does not constitute a major reform of our electoral system and we cannot see on what grounds there would be any opposition to it.

The other two items on the menu are electoral and constitutional reforms. Around these, unfortunately, not only isn’t there any consensus, but there is so much confusion that it is difficult to make an informed choice. The whole debate has been hijacked and reduced to a game of alliances with one faction in the MMM pushing for an alliance with the Labour Party and the other for a remake of the defunct remake and even getting rid of the MMM’s historical leader. People are free in their choices and affinities as well as in the boutte each hopes to get from their chosen alliance. It is when the pot starts calling the kettle black that we have a problem. It is when one or the other alliance is being marketed as the one which will sweep the country clean of its ills that we can’t help but laugh up our sleeves.

The major debate today is about us – as a population – understanding the reforms which will hopefully soon be presented to us and our right to cool-headedly think them through and give our verdict. That, beyond the inflated egos of attention-seekers, should remain our focus.

As far as alliances are concerned, we repeat our stand here: each party should have the courage to face the electorate alone and whatever alliances the parties choose to get into should be after we have given our verdict through the ballot box. As for the big joke of reviving an unnatural alliance for the nth time to clean the country, we are frankly not amused. Old, rugged and dirty brooms do not sweep clean. So, give us a break, please!

weekly@lasentinelle.mu