The Appointment of a Deputy Prime Minister Fuels Political Discussions
One month after Paul BĂ©renger's resignation as Deputy Prime Minister, the question of his replacement continues to stir political conversations.
Yesterday, during an event in Saint-Pierre, Ajay Guness, deputy leader and member of the collective leadership of the Mauritian Militant Movement (MMM), made a revelation. "There have been recent meetings with Navin Ramgoolam regarding this matter, but it is up to the Prime Minister to decide." Rajesh Bhagwan, reached by phone yesterday afternoon, echoed this sentiment. The Minister of the Environment confirmed internal discussions within the party but emphasized that the prerogative of the head of government must be respected.
Adding another dimension to this debate, which is more sensitive, is the issue of ethnic balance within the front bench. As is often the case in Mauritius, political considerations cannot be entirely separated from sociological balances. Several names are already circulating for the position of number two in the government, notably Arianne Navarre-Marie, indicating that calculations extend far beyond mere partisan logic.
Behind this debate lie deeper issues: the very nature of this position according to the Constitution, the balance of power within the Alliance of Change, and the representation of the Mauritian Militant Movement at the top of the state.
The role of Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) raises questions. Some speak of a political appointment, conferred by the Prime Minister to a member of his cabinet, without specific powers formally assigned to them by the Constitution. In other words, the Deputy Prime Minister exists solely by the will of the head of government, who remains the sole holder of executive authority.
Constitutional lawyer Parvez Dookhy has a different interpretation.
"There are three positions that are mandatory in the government, without which the government cannot exist: the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Attorney General. It is stated in the Constitution: 'there shall be.' This means it is obligatory. Moreover, it is something that must be done swiftly after the departure of the former officeholder. That’s why I believe we are in violation of the Constitution. If things continue like this, the solution would be for the leader of the opposition to approach the Supreme Court and request an injunction to compel the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic to appoint a new DPM. Because we are in blatant violation of the Constitution."
The question of the timing of this appointment arises.
Mandatory Appointment
In this regard, the Prime Minister holds the cards. He can choose to fill this position or redefine internal balances without necessarily appointing an immediate successor to Paul BĂ©renger. This partly explains the caution observed at the top of the executive, where there seems to be little inclination to yield to pressure.
However, beyond the influence games and speculations, the political calendar imposes its own priorities. As a crucial budgetary exercise approaches, the government is faced with significant economic challenges. In this context, the appointment of a DPM, although symbolically strong, may not constitute an absolute urgency for the executive. The stability and coherence of governmental action take precedence, at least officially, over internal adjustments.
Thus, the debate surrounding the appointment of the DPM extends far beyond the question of a title. It highlights the subtleties of the Mauritian constitutional system, where law and politics are closely intertwined. There are also the power dynamics within a coalition seeking balance. Between partisan demands and executive prerogatives, the equation remains unresolved — and its outcome could reveal much about the evolution of the political landscape in the coming months.
