Much ink has been spilt over the MMM/Labour alliance and the second republic since last Saturday’s press conference at Clarisse House. Between fear, apprehension and satisfaction, musings were plentiful.

From the few details the two leaders were willing to reveal, it seems that a great part of the political power has been shifted to Réduit while the prime minister still retains some prerogatives. Though these are not unlimited, they do raise the MMM from what Finlay Salesse – as far back as 1992 – called the “role of the little brother with no arrogance” which it had settled for since 1983, to a more empowered but still smaller brother who can now afford some arrogance.

How Paul Bérenger chooses to look at the glass – whether half full or half empty – is not really the question. Who has more power than whom is a debate between each political leader and his electorate. We have to deal with the bigger issues of what such an alliance would mean for the country.

If, during the 2005 election – Labour-MSM against the MMM – terrible fears were expressed about dividing the country on communal grounds, this alliance can only promise to bring the nation together. On that score alone, it is an improvement. The fears though this time are about the implications of an LP/MMM electoral juggernaut facing a fl imsy hotchpotch of fringe opposition parties. What would happen if there were no strong opposition in our national assembly – barring one or two candidates and four best losers? Would that be the end of democracy as we know it?

The cynical side of us would like to ask the following question: since when have we had a meaningful, constructive, disinterested opposition in our national assembly? Not since 1982! With the absence of a clear difference in ideology between parties and the lethal game of alliances being made and unmade, followed by turncoats allowed to put their personal interests above those of the gullible souls who elected them, the national assembly has turned into a cold arena where there has been more courtship and calculated attacks than meaningful questions and constructive criticism.

And every party has been guilty of this. You will recall MSM’s Pravind Jugnauth joining the national assembly after the Moka/Quartier Militaire election, where he rode on the votes of the Labour Party, then in government, describing the stand of his party as “loyal opposition” – a term which he used again when he left the government benches after the Med Point scandal broke out.

You will also recall how, between 2010 and 2011, the MMM was chewing the bare bones of the MSM while sparing the Labour Party with whom it was seeking an alliance. You will equally remember how an MMM member of parliament was forced to withdraw a question which would have embarrassed the MSM as soon as negotiations began with the latter after they left government. The list is endless.

Add to this the game of seduction by the Labour Party to woo MSM MPs after the break up of the coalition and the cheers with which the MMM/ MSM opposition welcomed the government budget in an attempt to lure the minister of finance to its side and you have the full picture of the role of both government and the opposition in our national assembly.

So, what will happen if there were no strong opposition? Nothing that we haven’t seen so far. So, maybe we should turn our attention to the real issues.

Opinion published in Weekly's edition of the 11th-17th September