The political situation in Mauritius is in ebullition with the Labour Party (MLP) holding on to power with a slim majority in Parliament. The defection of the Movement Socialist Mauricien (MSM) from the government, it is believed, could endanger Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam's rule. The ongoing crisis maybe the chance for Paul Berenger to grab power for the last time.
As a backdrop of the crisis, is the sale of a private medical institution, the MedPoint. MedPoint is where a historic meeting in 2000 sealed an unlikely alliance that defeated the MLP. Berenger, a Mauritian of European descent has clear chances of becoming Prime Minister again. The burning question around the 'Government House' in Port Louis is for how long will Ramgoolam hold on to power?
The 'MedPoint affair' as it is called in Mauritius, remains at the forefront of the events that has stirred the crisis. The implications of this affair may or may not send the country into darker days. How the PM handles the situation from here, amid claims of abuse of power from the opposition, is vital. It all started in 2010 when the MLP joined the MSM in an unlikely alliance that routed the MMM and its allies. The MMM was in talks with the MSM with a 'natural' alliance between the two parties almost finalized. The seats allocation were to give the MMM a larger number of representatives than the MSM. The surprise was enormous when the MSM decided instead to join the MLP. The MLP had offered the MSM more seats that the MMM would offer.
Nevertheless, political insiders in the opposition are privately suggesting a 'plot' was always in the air. They insist that the MSM joined the MLP to uncover a certain 'scandals', exposing Ramgoolam's leadership. Observers believe an allianc...
... middle of paper ...
...
An investigation in India indicated that the EKS, a Mauritius-based private consultant firm, is responsible for alleged wrongdoings. Contracts for "consultancy services" have been entrusted to EKS June 2009. Another company in the offshore sector in Mauritius, the Delphi, a subsidiary of Mavi Investment, is in the sights of the Indian authorities. They too are accused of being involved in money laundering having to do with the lucrative telecommunications sector. However, in Mauritius, the talk is that the India-Mauritius treaty will not be on the agenda, citing lack of evidence.
It is disclosed that authorities in India are waiting for things to settle in the Mauritian political scene before initiating talks on the Treaty. New Delhi and Port-Louis is yet to reach an understanding on the renegotiation of the treaty.
Works Cited
Le Mauricien, L'ex press, Le Defi
He was complex, he was known as the father of his country, he was Toussaint Louverture. Who was Toussaint Louverture? Toussaint was a young slave born around the 1740s. He was born in Saint Domingue (present day Haiti). He started out as a herder and worked his way up to overseeing fellow slaves. His Godfather taught him how to read and write and soon enough he was granted freedom by his owner and rented a coffee plantation with his own slaves. How we should remember Toussaint Louverture is kind of a controversial subject. I believe that Toussaint should be remembered as a great Haitian leader because he was tough, he had a good sense of moral leadership, he was compassionate and had political skill.
Although there are similarities and differences in lever of party discipline between the MPs and the Senate, they both work and are effective. For the MPs, levers such as collective responability, the danger of being re-elected or suspension, and control over Question Period help in securing high party discipline and unity by defining a stiff boundary and pulled them together. While the Senate does not face the problem of being removed from the party for displeasing their party leaders as the MPs do, the very method of being appointed directly by the Governor General (under the advice of the PM) and their background similarities ensure that they think alike and therefore have high party discipline. In contrast, MPs have a relatively more individualistic reasons for maintaining high party discipline while the motive for the Senate is more group-oriented.
Review by: M. A. Fitzsimons; The Review of Politics Vol. 16, No. 2 (Apr., 1954) , pp. 241-244. Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1404915
...'Malley, (2007). The Power of Prime Ministers: Results of an Expert Survey.International Political Science Review. 28 (1), pp.7-27
have ended there; however, the official wording of the treaty that was signed turned out to be
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
Contrary to popular belief, a minority government does not necessarily hinder a governing party. When practiced correctly, a minority government can be an improvement on single-party majority. Instead of one party controlling government, minority governments allow for multi-party governance, which promotes compromise between political parties. On the whole, minority government decreases stability and requires continuous cooperation with opposition parties. Although faced with many challenges, there are several beneficial aspects to a minority government. This paper will argue that a minority government does not hinder a governing party, and in fact can be beneficial in numerous ways. Most importantly a minority government allows the Prime Minister to maintain a range of important resources which allow for an effective government, minority governments deliver a more open and inclusive decision making process, and a minority government guarantees the confidence of the House for a certain amount of time.
Before one is able to understand the political system of Aruba, they must first become familiar with the history of the island. Aruba is now a part of the Royal Dutch Kingdom, however 500 years ago it was discovered by a Spaniard named Alonso de Ojeda.
Meanwhile, the PPP, was experiencing further turbulence and withdrawal from its own ranks at the leadership and mid-leadership levels. Others have traced unrest to the internal ‘authoritarian’ nature of the PPP. The Weekend Post noted that the Rice Producers Association, the Maha Sabha, the Guyana Council of Indian Organizations(GCIO) and the Islamic Anjuman, all of whom the PPP relied for its ethnic support base were increasingly alarmed with the party’s Marxist trajectory and were “trying to free themselves from the communist PPP.” This assertion was justified in the prevalence of public dissension in the ranks, not all of which was ideological.
There are at least three areas that encompass ‘weak corporate governance’, 1. Multiple Prime Ministers from different parties 2. Inconsistent and ineffective policies and 3. Leadership.
Perhaps this contradiction led an alert Guyanesese middle-class lawyer to ask a provocative question at the height of the PNC's repression of the WPA and the PPP, in a context where all three contenders were self-identified Lefti...
When we look by at Haiti history we see some great leaders that fought for the rights and freedom of the people and we see those we fought to enslave the free people of Haiti. President Jean Pierre Boyer was a man who believed in control, control of the people, the politics and the land. His political leadership stance was less democracy and more dictatorship. Boyer lack of leadership lead him to support the France and agree to the destructive of Haiti future.
In the 1999 elections for the first time in Malaysia’s history opposition parties united under Barisan Alternatif (Alternative Front or BA). Party Keadilan is a small multi-ethnic party formed in 1999 by activists in the reformation movement. Besides, PAS (Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party) had provided strong competition for UMNO. Another major ...
Haiti is a Caribbean country with a population of about 10.32 million people. This low- income country is the poorest in the western hemisphere. This country is handicapped by problems such as deforestation and only bearing 3% of its land forested. In the midst of natural disasters many portions of the environment and population become compromised. In Haiti almost 97% of the “working class” make up the agricultural and informal sector. In August of 2008 Haiti was impacted by four hurricanes, greatly damaging the countries heath, well-being, infrastructure and economic production. The hurricanes took the gross domestic product from a 3.7% to 1.3%.
The lives and prosperity of millions of people depend on peace and, in turn, peace depends on treaties - fragile documents that must do more than end wars. Negotiations and peace treaties may lead to decades of cooperation during which disputes between nations are resolved without military action and economic cost, or may prolong or even intensify the grievances which provoked conflict in the first place. In 1996, as Canada and the United States celebrated their mutual boundary as the longest undefended border in the world, Greece and Turkey nearly came to blows over a rocky island so small it scarcely had space for a flagpole.1 Both territorial questions had been raised as issues in peace treaties. The Treaty of Ghent in 1815 set the framework for the resolution of Canadian-American territorial questions. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920, between the Sultan and the victorious Allies of World War I, dismantled the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and distributed its territories. Examination of the terms and consequences of the two treaties clearly establishes that a successful treaty must provide more than the absence of war.