The Labour Party is in dire straits. The party polled around 31% of the electorate and yet found itself in the doldrums of politics. For the second time in a row its leader has been beaten by a bigger margin and despite having migrated to a different constituency.

What are the preliminary lessons that the Labour Party can draw from the 2019 general elections? 

A plethora of lessons. But it is apposite to note that the November general elections were not in any way a snap election.

Leadership

David Runciman (Historian – English academic who teaches history and politics at Cambridge University, author of The Politics of Good Intentions, Political Hypocrisy, The Confidence Trap, Where Power Stops: The Making and Unmaking of Presidents and Prime Ministers among others) has said that the key question voters ask of any leader is “do I like that person?” and more importantly the question at the back of their minds is “would that person like me?” Unfortunately, for Labour Party Pravind Jugnauth passed and Navin Ramgoolam unsurprisingly flunked that test.

Key questions which accompany the Runciman’s test: 

Who is more likely to listen to me? 
Who is caring and not cosmetic? 
Who will not look for scapegoats? 
Who will not swear at me? 
Who will deserve my trust? 
Who will not flush me as a rotten tissue paper?

In Australia, Morrison has won the elections but there also the test tilted in favour of the second favourite.

Is Navin Ramgoolam the only one to blame? No! The majority of the executive members are to be blamed as they have acted like cowards and the rest are simply cowards.

Some mistakes: 

(a)No clear narrative; 
(b) No clear message to the youngsters and those who voted for the first time; 
(c) Confused platform; 
(d) Half-baked proposals (police-public holidays-law and order) with boomerang effect;

(e) Slip of the tongue (2014 Rekin Mous- tache – 2019 Bizin bwi billet); 
(f) “Programme de rupture”, the programme was far from being radical and when we know that right wing Xavier and Rama Sitanen would have been at the helm the programme did not augur well. 

A programme which has never been the centre of any democratic debate nor was a result of a vast consultation with different stakeholders.

“Me Too Campaign” 

Instead of focusing on: 

(a) Environment; 
(b) Food security (and its correlation with all sorts of avoided diseases); 
(c) Security of children and women senior citizens; 
(d) Security at work (no hire and fire policy advocated by some right wing Blairites); 
(e) New strategy against drugs with the inexorable rising of synthetic drugs – depenalisation (leaving Jugnauth to be perceived as a champion of drugs abuse); 
(f) Sports/arts/culture; 
(g) Justice and access to justice;

No! What a hell! Mere cosmetic words. Clips should have been on these issues with a constant backdrop of: 

(1) Democracy; 
(2) Liberty; 
(3) Justice; 
(4) Equal opportunities; 
(5) Transparency at all levels. 

No! Everything was muddled. How can one attack the Jugnauths economic programme and legacy when one is promising that “we will also increase all pensions, number of holidays…” The “Me Too campaign” played into the hands of Pravind Jugnauth as between “photocopies and originals” people always choose originals.

The name of the alliance

Do you remember “Parti Alliance Nationale?” In 1982, that was the name of the Labour Alliance which led to the first 60-0 of our electoral history.

Who is the fool who retrieved such a name from the bin of history? 2019 -Alliance nationale.

It shows that those who matter around Navin Ramgoolam don’t know the history of Labour Party. Oh! James Burty David please don’t cry!

The Labour Party did not have a clear panorama of what’s going on in our country.

No organisation/structure

Labour Party does not have an organisational structure. Two to three years after its inception Labour Party had more than 50,000 members with full-timers in every district.

Before the November general elections few constituencies had a façade of organisation. The members were so scared of Navin Ramgoolam that they were paralysed to take any initiatives.

Navin Ramgoolam should not have lost in No 10 if he had set up a modern democratic structure at the level of each constituency.

Do you know that Labour Party consists of twenty Labour constituency parties? What about the Labour Party constitution? When will the constitution be modernised? When will the next congress be held? Labour Party should never be a fan club!

Who is to win if you don’t have a democratic organisation?

The time is ripe to start organising now because the anniversary of the party is around 100 days.

Wrong choice of candidates

Was there a true thinking process of the profiles of the candidates? I doubt it unless those who were behind the choices were either under the influence of soporific substances or are on the payrolls of the opponents. Can Labour Party afford the luxury of having poor candidates? Can Labour Party juggle with the havoc caused by the nomination of candidates who have never proved their mettle?

Choice of front benchers and President of the Republic

Rather be economical with words … muddled minds in muddy waters. Briefly, pursuing core votes strategy instead of trying to woo the votes of those who have deserted. The list is too exhaustive!

Some examples of blunders:

• No captivating jingle: «Koze Navin koze» v/s «bare ala nou vini» (note the Navin v/s nou) 
• No good captivating slogan «ansam tou posib» v/s «liber nou pays» (Mauritians are no fools and we are not under an occupation)
• «Mo ena parol» v/s «no answer» (not one single orator defended Navin Ramgoolam)

With all these blunders success was arithmetically difficult. And in the minds of the electors whatever Pravind said was an “undertaking” whereas Navin’s promise was a cosmetic one. Who came forward to say that Labour promised free education days before the general elections of 1976 and delivered (Sir Kher Jagatsingh a visionary!) by Sir Seewoosagur three weeks later? Navin Ramgoolam promised in 2005 free public transport for students and senior citizens which was delivered within weeks… Who said so during the campaign? “Choup chap” on radio and TV. Cowards die many times before their deaths!

Orators

All the orators of the Labour Party did not have a proper “argumentaire”. It was an ordeal to listen to them. It was clear that there was no coordination, preparation or ping pong with representatives of the electorate to check and countercheck the arguments.

No blame games! Yes, but in the interests of Labour Party Navin must go. Prepare the next generation … Ramful-Varma-Shakeel – Osman – Fabrice and so many others can do it. Sorry if I hurt some of my friends but the time is before the municipal and village elections which will come very quickly… let the youngsters sharpen their teeth and the Ramgoolam – Boolell and Bachoo can be discreet mentors … yes discreet. Maybe even invisible for the sake of such a great party.

Gossips

Labour Party must learn to drift away from gossips and paranoia. The paranoid and suspicious attitude of Navin has killed the fighting spirit of many true rank and file members. The seeds of defeat were implanted not by the opponents but by Navin himself. And there is no cure for that sort of ingrained disease.

I used the word cowards in the previous paragraphs, but I fear that cowards might sue me for defamation.

 Future  
There is a God for Labour Party provided we act now.