It is like putting plaster on a gangrenous limb. Or treating cancer with a mild painkiller. Such is the action of sacking two political nominees this week by Ministers Roshi Badhain and Prem Koonjoo. Too little, perhaps too late. And particularly inelegant.

I must first confess that I have no problem with those who benefitted from political patronage, to get into positions where they should not be in the first place, being evicted from power when the patronage tap runs dry. The coller lafis who accept favours from politicians must, unfortunately, accept that those who give power can take it away.

So, apart from the few professionals genuinely chosen for their competence and who, at any rate, are happy to go back to their profession as soon as their work is no longer appreciated, the roder bouttes of all ilk and colour do not deserve our sympathy when their luck runs out. The problem I have with these two layoffs is twofold.

First, there is a serious problem when two ministers get involved in the day-to-day running of institutions and decide that the person they want to show the door to is not fit for the job. Worse, they even go as far as publicly passing a comment on the person’s performance, at times going into details which really should have been confined to the boardroom.

And let’s not confuse rash, targeted and unmeasured statements with transparency. Transparency is about giving us the full information so that we can make an informed opinion. In Vasant Jogoo’s dismissal from the Mauritius Oceanographic Institute, for example, we cannot take seriously the reason given by the minister to the effect that the former “travelled too often, did not perform well and had problems with everyone”. You either give us all the figures and answer our questions about other people’s travel and expenses, including new globe-trotting ministers, or you keep the information out of the public place. There is no mid-way in transparency. As for Pritam Parmessur, we know of few people who would defend his performance in the last few months but wouldn’t it have been more elegant to spare one’s political leader – Pravind Jugnauth – the embarrassment of the nomination and allow Parmessur to leave in dignity?

The second issue takes us back to the plaster/painkiller debate. We have for many years now – irrespective of the government in place – sat and helplessly watched totally inept people rise from absolutely nothing to the highest possible positions in government and parastatals, leapfrogging those who are competent and hard-working. We cringed at the thought of having to bear the brunt of their inefficiency with the concomitant consequences. We saw them jetting around the world digging in the threadbare pockets of the hard-working and tax-paying citizens who gave up the hope that meritocracy would ever prevail.

Then we looked at the Alliance Lepep’s manifesto and we dared hope that our youth would have a better deal. Hope which was short-lived as we were served more of the same. In fact, worse. Nominations of close relatives and mistresses to positions where utmost competence and independence are needed. Then we gave up hope. Pompously trying a couple of nominees in the public square to replace them with other nominees who have already displayed their allegiance to the power in place serves neither the cause of meritocracy nor transparency.

So, it is too little, a little too late!