Sitting on the fence
01. Oct, 2009 
5 Comments
Where does this silly attitude come from? What’s the origin of all this fuss? Well, for me, it’s from the nature of the Mauritian society itself.
Mauritius is a multi-cultural country, with different religions and cultures cohabiting (more or less) without tension. However, the fear and ignorance (both walk in pair) of the neighbour is common: a fear of engaging into conflictual, enriching debates with the other. (The only occasion when some discuss about others is dan reunion emba la boutik or during reunions privees which take place during electoral periods, and they are not at all enriching discussions.)
It is not by remaining silent on embarrassing and difficult issues that we will construct our Nation. It is only when we are willing to discuss openly about our differences without resorting to violence that we will be able to bring down the walls of division.
Image from public-domain.zorger.com
mais si to trop trop dire, capav vine dangereux…dimoune capav gagne batter a coz ene simple zafaire, a coz so couler lapo, a coz so prop opinion…couma to p dir c dans mentalité mauricien…
concernant rama valayden > no comments ^^
I think we have two issues here. You mentioned the British press taking sides. I believe this is a way of doing things. This is part of their no-bullshit culture. And it's good.
But knowing our society, I believe that the press cannot have this kind of stance here. It would start riots! Do remember what MSM madmen did in front of radio one, just because they didnt agree with the crowd estimate of l'express!!!
So I go on to the other issue. I'm a believer in advocacy journalism. What is meant by that is that journalists take side on the basis of issues at stake. The best possible way of illustrating this is l'express and l'express dimanche's position on the "Sithanen reform."
We felt that a thourough economic reform was to be undertaken. We felt that a national residential tax was necessary, we felt strongly about business facilitation and income tax reform. I for one wrote numerous articles before the first Sithanen budget in 2006 to hint at where government economic policy should head. These were not opinion pieces, but economic analysis that tended often to conclude that such and such economic reform was important. Sithanen eventually did just that. He is honest to the point to agree that the press somehow convinced some of his own collegues to give his reform a try!
In this sense we (and I myself) might have ended up being called "pro-sithanen" especially after my own paper, l'express dimanche confered upon him the coveted title of "Le Mauricien de l'année" of 2006. But as Sithanen himself puts it jokingly: "C'est pas parski l'express contan moi ki zot fine donn moi l'hom de l'année. C'est parski mo fine fer se ki zot pensé mo bizin fer."
To sum it up. My personal stance is yes for issue based advocacy that might need for a journalist and his paper to tilt towards such and such party or such and such politicans on specific issues.
But general electoral "partisanerie" should be avoided. Because,our people, readers and listeners are just not mature enough to handle this. And I dont feel that I'm putting down our people by saying that. Maybe we will be able to be a no-bullshit society one day. But it's just not gonna happen next year or in 2 years time…
It is one thing to not remain silent on certain critical issues and it's another to go on 24/24 about one's views.
Of course, I don't think it's bad to be pro-this or pro-that, or anti-this or anti-that, so long as people are rational in their wway of thinking and do not hit me in the face all the time with propaganda.
Lastly, although the UK press is arguably the best in the world in terms of analytical know-how, freedom and open-ness, we can't say the Mauritian press has to be the same, because they deal with different kinds of populations and hence different kinds of mentalities. If L'express had a picture of a topless big-breasted woman on Page 3, imagine the uproar! The Sun can splash across its first page (like they did today) 'Brown has lost it', it doesn't mean Le Matinal can say 'Navin is finished' on its cover! Now, whether the Mauritian press should be more open is debatable and ambiguous in a way, since open-ness has a different meaning in Mauritius!! People are less open in Mauritius, and it's only a bad thing if it prevents the discussion of sensitive topics which need to be talked about. Otherwise I see no problem with being less 'open' than the British.
I say, have beliefs, support whoever you want to, do not be afraid of discussing topics while being careful of not offending someone, but please do not be blind, do not be stooges, do not support without reason and respect opposing views.
As for the press supporting a particular party, I don't think it could work in Mauritius since people are so fanatic about party allegiance. In the UK, most people hate both major parties lol so they don't mind!
I would like to underline two facts in the above comment which might elude many of your readers.
1. l'express dimanche is a wholly separate unit from the daily l'express, whith a completely separate editorial team and hence, editorial line (I said editorial line, not political stance) from l'express daily.
2. Rabin's comment again illustrates how certain media "give comprehension tools and hints to it's readers on a political issue". This pro-issue position should not be confused with political partisanship. How to tell the difference? Simply because it is done in a structured way, backed by arguments, justifying every claim.
Mauricien sa do. So mentalite diiir lol. Bizin pez bouton RESET mem dan pay la pu tou restart