Ramkalawan has lost three Presidential elections against Albert Rene and one against James Michel on the trot. Many have attributed the lack of success at the polls to a lack of money. However, this is but only a myth as the correlation between money and political success is over exaggerated. Just because two things are correlated, it does not mean that one causes the other. A correlation simply means that a relationship exists between two factors. In order to figure out the relationship between money and elections, one has to consider the incentives at play in campaign finance.
In the normal course of event incumbents and front runners obviously have more cash than the rest, but they only spend a lot of it when they stand a legitimate chance of losing; otherwise why dip into a war chest that might be more useful later on. Now picture two candidates, like Ramkalawan and James Michel, one intrinsically appealing and the other not so. The appealing candidate raises much more money and wins easily. But was it the money that won him the votes, or was it his appeal that won the votes and the money? The amount of money spent by a candidate hardly matters. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favour by only that same 1 percent.
What really matters for a political candidate is not how much you spend; what matters is who you are. How else can you explain Albert Rene winning three consecutive Presidential elections despite a prevailing economic crisis and general discontentment in the country? How else do you explain, James Michel winning the 2006 Presidential election despite all the problems in the Country? The truth of the matter is some politicians are inherently attractive to voters and others simply aren’t, and no amount of money can do much about it. Ramkalawan unfortunately falls in the latter category. It would be interesting to see a political rivalry between Bernard Georges and James Michel in a Presidential election, for example. Albert Rene was the first politician to recognize the political threat posed by Bernard Georges.
It is clear that the reason Ramkalawan has not been successful at the polls is because he lacks voter appeal. Ramkalawan has also acknowledged this fact. This is why he has changed his political strategy and tact vis-à-vis the SPPF. However, the one thing that Ramkalwan needs to do but refuses to do is step down for someone who has more voter appeal than himself. Ramkalawan has stated that he will henceforth act in the national interest. Is it not in the national interest for him to step down in favour of another person with more voter appeal than himself to step in? For him to continue in the face of defeat after defeat is not only selfish and egotistical but also smacks of authoritarianism. This is why it is hard to fathom that Ramkalawan will indeed practice what he preach. He seems to be confused between national interest and personal interest. His supporters are also clearly not in favour of his decision to engage the SPPF without the SPPF showing a genuine and sincere willingness to change the way they govern this country. What we need in this country is a strong opposition; an opposition which will constantly put pressure on the government to be more accountable and transparent. Unfortunately, Ramkalawan’s new approach is detrimental to our nascent democracy. Without any change on the ground coming from SPPF, Ramkalawan has no business jumping in bed with them. His decision to suddenly cozy up to the SPPF is a matter of grave concern to all those who wants democracy to flourish and evolve