Dr. Avinash Munohur: "Paul Bérenger Must Resign"

Dr. Avinash Munohur argues that Paul Bérenger should resign from his position. Caught between internal procedures and political pressure, Bérenger is stalling within the MMM party. He is in the minority in party decision-making bodies, trying to buy time while the question of his leadership and the future of the MMM in government remains unresolved. Munohur, a political scientist and strategy consultant, discusses the implications of Bérenger's actions.

Everyone expected Bérenger and/or the MMM to step down from the government. However, the party leader seems to have backtracked on his earlier statements about prioritizing the country, opting instead to rely on the central committee's decision and prolong his tenure. We now await a new political bureau meeting to see what he decides.

It is crucial to understand that Bérenger is navigating the MMM's internal procedures. The party's constitution and operational structure are quite specific, resembling a Marxist-Leninist model, operating similarly to a state structure. This approach aims to align party operations with those of a government to facilitate a natural transition to power.

In simple terms, the political bureau (BP) functions like a cabinet, the central committee (CC) acts like a governing majority, and the delegate assembly resembles a parliament.

Thus, Bérenger is adhering to the party's internal procedures. This may seem outdated to an outside observer, but he has his reasons, even if they are sometimes inexplicable.

Recent events clearly indicate that he is in the minority in both the BP and CC. He has failed to build the necessary consensus in these bodies to enact a resignation from the government. Politically, he is currently at a loss within his own party. If there were an internal election today in the BP or CC, he would have to resign as the MMM leader.

So what is he doing? He is stalling. He accepts his minority status and is buying time. Instead of executing his threats of resignation—which would also mean the MMM's resignation—he is stalling in hopes of leveraging the delegate assembly, where he might have a better chance of regaining power.

You mention that he will wait for the BP meeting on Monday to make a decision. That’s possible. However, I believe he will call an emergency meeting of the delegate assembly. In my opinion, that would be his only means of regaining control over the MMM at this point.

The MMM claims to be a structured party that heavily relies on its institutions. Isn’t it currently trapped by those very institutions?

You raise an extremely pertinent question. As I just explained, the MMM's structure is modeled after a Marxist-Leninist framework, where the institutions function like organs close to the executive of a government. This structure has its advantages, and history has shown that it can work in a one-party system—like that of the Chinese Communist Party.

Jacques Chirac often said that one should not assume there is no democracy in China. According to him, that democracy does not lie within the government but within the party. In a sense, he was not wrong, even if it represents a different conception of democracy. In China, the party structure is entirely intertwined with the decision-making bodies of the state.

In Mauritius, we fortunately have a different system—a Westminster-type system with a plurality of political parties. Therefore, the entire structure of the MMM becomes, in my view, a parasitic system when the party is in power.

In our system, it is the Council of Ministers that decides on the country's policies, not the BP. It is the governing majority that sets political directions, not the CC. It is Parliament that votes on laws and addresses major issues, not the delegate assembly.

The tragedy of the MMM is that it has never fully integrated this reality. The 1983 split also stemmed from Bérenger's desire to make the MMM's BP the decisive body of the government—which is entirely incompatible with our system.

To directly answer your question, I believe this structure is now unnecessary, outdated, and obsolete. It no longer meets current imperatives.

I will be clear: I find it problematic that the members of the delegate assembly—mainly long-time activists and staunch Bérengists—are the ones who can decide whether the MMM remains in government. It is the people, in the expression of their sovereignty, who placed the MMM in power, not the delegate assembly.

And it is Paul Bérenger, through his words, who defended this alliance with Navin Ramgoolam as being in the country's interest. Therefore, he must fully assume the responsibility for it.

The vast majority of activists wanted the MMM to stay in government, contrary to their leader's wishes. Can Paul Bérenger remain at the helm of the party, or must he step aside?

Paul Bérenger is in a position of defeat within his party. In any modern democracy, a leader in this position typically resigns. That is generally the norm. Margaret Thatcher, for example, did so while still at the height of her power.

If he believes he can no longer continue under the current conditions, he must pass the baton to an elected MMM member to ensure the continuity of government work. Today, three individuals seem capable of taking on the leadership: Rajesh Bhagwan, Ajay Gunness, and Reza Uteem.

Paul Bérenger should have resigned a long time ago—at least 19 years ago. The MMM has lost many talents because he has held on to this leadership for too long.

But we are in Mauritius, and things do not always operate like in other modern democracies. Certainly, we are a democracy, but we also retain some archaic forms of thinking. That, in my view, is the real challenge.