Parvez Dookhy: “Paul Bérenger has not played his last score”

The Mauritian Militant Movement (MMM) is going through its most serious crisis since 1983. Parvez Dookhy analyzes the internal divisions, the legitimacy of Paul Bérenger's leadership and the tensions within the majority. Between political recomposition and electoral strategy, the future of the party seems uncertain, with major challenges for the government. How can we decipher the current sequence within the MMM? Are we facing a deep crisis or a simple internal adjustment? I think this is the biggest crisis the MMM is going through or, at least, it is comparable to that of 1983. Because we are in a situation where the Party Leader risks losing the party. This is what happened in 1983. Anerood Jugnauth, also Prime Minister, found himself in a minority within the party and had to resign himself to leaving the MMM to Paul Bérenger and his camp and then founding the MSM. Today, it is the opposite situation. It is this same Paul Bérenger who finds himself in the minority. However, the difference is that in 1983 the party was structured. We realize that now it functions solely as a family business. The statutes, called the constitution, of the party are not implemented or applied at all. The typical example is that the general secretary is a minister, which is apparently contrary to the party statutes. The bodies are not up to date and no appointment has been made according to the rules. In terms of magnitude, this is a big breakout and perhaps even the beginning of the end of MMM as we have known it.

Can the vote of the Central Committee really resolve the divisions or does it risk, on the contrary, accentuating them? The question, to put an end to the conflicts, is legitimacy as it is appreciated. Who has legitimacy within the MMM? To answer this question, there are two elements of response. If the MMM is a structured and democratic party, it is up to the party authorities to decide. If the MMM is a family party, that is to say owned by the Leader, like the other major parties, it goes without saying that legitimacy will be found on the side of Paul Bérenger. On a legal level, it is possible that the courts, if seized, will tend to enforce the party statutes more, because that is what the law is based on. But on a popular level, within the population, it is perhaps Paul Bérenger who represents the legitimate MMM. The best for them, for both camps, is to find an arbitration, a neutral personality who belonged to the party and who will decide. Otherwise, I have the impression that the matter will end up in court. I have the feeling that Navin Ramgoolam’s PTr is pushing in this direction. I understand that he asked for the organization of local party meetings, which they call regional, so that in each constituency there is a decision taken on the question of remaining in government or not. It’s to isolate Paul Bérenger.

To what extent are meetings governed