Kailash M. Nunkoo.
BTech – IIT Bombay, CQE & CSSGB – ASQ.
The outcome of the 2024 general elections of Mauritius surprised most people. The same happened in the US and France – no political pundit was able to predict the margin of Trump’s victory and the low scores of the parties of Marine Le Pen in France and of Modi in India. There is no framework to understand social phenomena like elections, and even less for predicting their outcomes. The application of the principles of Physics and Marketing could help us develop such a framework. Physics teaches us that most physical phenomena can be explained by understanding the interactions of just a handful of basic forces and laws. Let’s attempt this to Politics! It will be also an avant-goût of a book about the understanding of social phenomena using scientific frameworks.
Part 1. The 4 C’s
The Cycle of Crisis
A first level of analysis of the general elections of Mauritius would reveal that there are four basic forces. Readers would make a parallel with the well-known framework, the 4P’s of Marketing (Product, Promotion, Place & Price). The first force driving Mauritian (and international) politics is the Cycle of Crisis. The crisis leading to the 2024 elections was made-up of several components: economic crisis caused by the rising costs and a fast-depreciating currency, and its consequences. There was also a social crisis made-up with several components: a series of scandals, cover-up of a political assassination, drug trafficking, unresolved water shortages… etc, and the anti-incumbency feeling (to win a third term government’s performance should be outstanding!). At the last moment there was the Moustass Leaks which intensified the crisis. The fact is that there is a cycle of crisis of about 10 years: 1982, 1995, 2005, 2014, 2024… with different aspects each time.
Communication
To encourage the voters to renew their confidence, the out-going government coined the slogan “Ansam Pli For”. But what for? Nothing was proposed to tackle the crisis – because they were not aware of the crisis – “Kot monn fote”! Their communication (or “over-communication”) about their perceived absence of the crisis was the biggest weakness of the out-going government. And the competent agencies did not (or could not) communicate the true situation to whomever was in charge!
Facing the government, were two blocks. The Linion Reform was formed just a few weeks before the elections. Before that they were two sub-groups made of Reform Party and Linion Moris. For a long time, the Reform Party had come-up with 100 Reforms. And its leader, Roshi Bhadain is tainted by his (too) vigorous involvement in a past MSM government. In Mauritius, his intelligence and eloquence come across as arrogance – wrong non-verbal communication! And with the other leaders of Linion Reform, together they were not enough charismatic to match Navin Ramgoolam and Paul Bérenger. They did not communicate effectively with the population about why they represent a better alternative.
Charisma
What makes a “Charismatic Leader”? That’s another dimension of analysis. All the new leaders could become charismatic …it suffices that they find a way to be on the same wavelength with the population, just for some period of time – like Paul Bérenger was in the 70’s up to the early 80’s and like Navin Ramgoolam was in the 2000’s. They had each emerged in the midst of crisis, and when a leader was on decline (SSR & SAJ respectively) and they were able to communicate and resonate with the expectation and level of understanding of the population for some time, to be able to create a base of about 15% of the voters. Long after that, this base follows them and creates confidence, and this generates the “charisma”!
Coalitions
There have always been alliances or coalitions in Mauritius. Their relative strengths depend on the charismatic leaders. The alliance of PMSD with the government did not work because the PMSD leader, though having some good qualities, was never a charismatic leader. Had the coalition of L’Entente de L’Espoir (MMM + Reform Party + others) survived, there would still have been a change of regime, but with an opposition. But the Labour Party and MMM had been traumatized by the 2019 defeat and could not take any risks in a three-block battle. Hence, they reshuffled the coalitions and adopted the “safest” short-term strategy.
Depth of Crisis
What were the 100+20 Reforms of Linion Reform for? Who even remembers the Top 10 reforms? And what was the slogan “Ni Navin Ni Pravind” for, a revolution? The bold ideas of Linion Reform would have certainly brought a “revolution”, but the population was not ready for that. Their proposals, their “Product” did not meet the expectations and needs of most of the population – there were no sufficient consumers for their product.
Though there was a crisis, it was not deep enough (costs and problems were increasing but so were consumption!). Only when consumption starts to decline, the measure of a deep crisis, then it is ripe for a revolution like in 1982 – when people accepted the revolutionary ideas of the MMM. The election of 1982 was a true democratic revolution, expressed by the result of 60-0! In 1982 the country was in deep economic and social crisis.
The elections of 1995 and 2024 which also resulted in 60-0 did not take place in moments of deep crisis, and they were not an expression of revolution, but of revulsion and lack of alternative coalitions!
“L’Alliance du Changement” combined the two most charismatic leaders and the best slogan: “Changement pe vini”! People just wanted a change but not yet a revolution! The leaders of this coalition were cunning enough not to come up with too bold ideas (rupture?) – they just matched the electoral promises of the outgoing government (the seeds of the next crisis!) – because they knew that people were just expecting a change. And they should not forget that: people still expect the changes! Time is ticking…
Coalitions are formed and break up before elections in an attempt to meet the expectations of the population and especially of the “silent majority”. But how to communicate with a majority which is silent? This is a problem across the world, and this is what derails all the experts and traditional analysis. This requires a second level of analysis given in Part 2.
