Anita Ramgutty, PhD.
Right away, let me explain that this essay – both title and subject matter – is inspired by the Rezistans Ek Alternativ name. I hope they do not mind. In this most turbulent of times and as the world is being churned about in this ‘global elections year’, we find the narrative of change, or renewal, or a fresh start, a rupture away from the past, used as a slogan and war-cry by many contenders to power at national level, offering up visions of a different future from the actions meted out by outgoing regimes. In sum, they promise an 
attractive, alluring, alternative. Sure enough, if you want to offer something different, everyone must understand that Sanzman pe vini,… However, are people really ready and willing to change, or do they, in the final analysis and in a more calculative mood, choose what they are more comfortable and familiar with, even if they dislike it? It’s like when you are looking for a job change: usually, people will give up a lousy job for any kind of change, but will be loath to leave an ‘okay’ one unless the type of change is, (a) significantly worth their while, in terms of what it will add to their finances, status, career, etc., etc., or (b) irresistibly inspiring, full of vision, values and lofty ideals, touching their hearts at the core. In the political field, a Gandhi or a Nelson Mandela, over and above the raising of real issues of repression, domination, and discrimination, were leaders who spoke their truth fearlessly and led the struggle, not for themselves, but for others, inspiringly and compellingly, and those who followed, followed fearlessly in turn.
Here in Mauritius, where some are claiming that these elections may be as crucial as those leading up to independence in 1967, it comes as no surprise that Sanzman is being proposed to do away with a number of alleged ills and malpractices of the outgoing party/ies that made up government for the last two terms. In the 1967 elections, the putative quarrel among the two political blocks, “pro” or “against” the country’s independence from Britain, was in effect a fight, by one side, to maintain capitalism (thus the status quo), and by the other side, to establish an economically and politically free society (in essence, representing radical departure from the status quo).
Even so, no fundamental sanzman was operated in the politico-economic power structure, as the plantocracy was maintained, aided and abetted by the new political elite and senior policy barons. It seems quite uncanny that even today, half a century later, the country seems to find itself at a strangely similar crossroads, with the past two decades characterised by an unequivocal and unapologetic focus of policies and actions toward GDP growth via the dynamised activities of the existing and historic major economic players, as well as boosting of direct foreign business investment. What we have is a perpetuation of the “haves” in effect still having it all, a conservative, patriarchal societal culture, and a habit of copy-catting the ideas, often disastrous ones too, of the so-called developed world.
Given that my topic of today is about change, I shall not comment on the electoral tactics and narratives of the outgoing political group, as they will surely have a clear direction before them, founded on what they believe to be concrete evidence of their effectiveness and accomplishments.
I would like however to offer up a question for consideration to the Sanzman advocates: What is the fundamental change, what rupture with the past, is being referred to under their banners? Is it as fundamental as establishing a new social system, through a clear ‘projet de société’, aimed at restoring confidence and wellbeing to Mauritians (as opposed to already-wealthy foreign investors), laying the scaffolding to build good governance, quality, fairness, rigour and care across all institutions, including the public service and the corporate world? I don’t think that my fellow citizens will view a mere change of faces adequately mean a new socio-economic-political order.
Granted, a most welcome change would be that we tackled head-on the scourges of drugs, the rising cost of living, increase in violence and insecurity, corruption and other forms of bad governance, but do people resonate with narratives about money politics, freedom of expression, or constitutional reform, and are their voting inclinations influenced by these issues, real or perceived? And are these the types of ‘changes’ they are happy to move toward, to vote for? I feel they might come across as vague and difficult-to-measure goals, a far cry from everyday preoccupations.
However, people don’t want to look foolish, so they ask nothing, and feel nothing, and may therefore be un-moved to see the value of the alternative, and to risk the change… After all, fear of the unknown and/or the misunderstood is at the root of resisting to change, especially a major one.
Rhetorical Triangle
Greek philosopher Aristotle once spoke about the rhetoric of influence through a threefold method to make an impression, to convince, and to influence someone toward a change: Logos-Pathos-Ethos, or the Rhetorical Triangle. Thus, he explained the necessity for producing an argument through Logos, based on hard facts and information to appeal to people’s reason, but not only... He advised to also reach for the emotions (Pathos), to understand what made people tick, what could or would make them think or behave in a particular way. It seems a tad manipulative, but then we know that astute politicians are generally not adverse to playing the game. Aristotle had another trick up his sleeve, however, and warned against the use of Logos and/or Pathos only, bringing up the idea of Ethos, suggesting that you would also have to possess credibility, character, be a model of integrity, to walk your talk, in order to influence anyone for change.
To apply Aristotle’s method is to consider each element as it balances with the other two. Let us observe its relevance to the narrative of the Sanzman campaigns by way of a few questions: At the Logos level, how well are the arguments presented, and do they appeal convincingly, at the mind level, in their most simple forms, to the bulk of voters? Do people understand them clearly, so as to be influenced by them?
Pathos appeals to the emotions and the imagination, as well as to beliefs and values of people. What then is known about the feelings, fears, wishes and dreams, doubts and desires of the electorate being wooed? Pathos can also be conceived of as the role of the audience in the argument, so is there any message about respecting and valuing the audience, empowering them in some way,? And what is the role and personal character, philosophy and values of those presenting themselves as future leaders of the country, and are they credible, full of compelling charisma? Are they perceived as reliable? On what grounds? If I take my own example of my own priorities, which I will freely extrapolate to represent a fair size of the voter pool, I can demonstrate how there is a serious PR gap in influencing me to vote for Sanzman:
I have written a number of times on the subject of ‘feminine’ values. It is not about being a woman or man, but about perspectives, methods, and setting priorities for action on the basis of a clear understanding not only of the causes, but also of the solutions, to the types of issues we face: violence in various forms, drugs, indifference, greed, environmental degradation, poor level of governance and ethics, un-democratic structures, exploitation, discrimination, basically all the ills of these dark times, ‘Feminine’ values are an accessible lever, an instrument, a scaffold, to understand the issues we face, and to address them too, and yet, and yet…neither any logos nor pathos nor ethos has convinced me so far to give my vote… What would it take me to give my vote to a Change? Certainly not the ineffectual exhortations, scraps and crumbs grudgingly tossed to “kre enn ti biznes” or “al fer politik”…
I want to know what will be done to increase participation and involvement of men, women and even children, as well as of other players of the social contract – businesses and civil society – at ALL levels, from the absolute micro community levels, through local government and upto central government, and what sort of power I will have, what voice, on important matters of education, health, climate, safety, economy, throughout the democratic process and in all instances and not just once every five years.
We tend to speak much of our historic political milestones as if they were a sequence of ever-improving democratic accomplishments, but what has really changed in terms of power dynamics in our country? People have been disempowered and know next to nothing about the democratic system as well as the workings of the development model. I ask that the Change be Different and Bold. I care not for your gender, age, party, or ethnicity. I simply demand you aim also to triumph over the entrenched and galloping evils of our society, beyond seeking electoral victory.
Fundamental change is never easy, but if everyone can grasp its necessity, if we can be inspired by the longer-term, bigger, picture, it will be possible to bring the messy problems to the table. We are inexorably losing our soul as a country, absorbed by consumerism and greed, blinded by short-term perspectives, sacrificing human and humane values at the altar of profit and self-interest. Sure, those who lobby in favour of maintaining outdated perspectives and values will rile and laugh, but you shall have MY vote !
To apply Aristotle’s method is to consider each element as it balances with the other two. Let us observe its relevance to the narrative of the Sanzman campaigns by way of a few questions: At the Logos level, how well are the arguments presented, and do they appeal convincingly, at the mind level, in their most simple forms, to the bulk of voters?