INTRODUCTION
Since “hell broke loose” with the decision of Reverend Wavel Ramkalawan, the Leader of Opposition, to unilaterally break-up the SNP/DP Alliance, our office has been inundated with enquiries from people from all walks of life enquiring as to the opinion of Sir James R. Mancham concerning the “dark political clouds” within our Nation today.
We publish below copy of our letter to Mr Mancham dated 19th November, 2007, and his subsequent comment on the matter. Mr Ramkalawan, of course, is wrong to entertain the thought that Mr Mancham is a spent force within our politics.
Le Nouveau
Sir James Mancham
Founder President of
Glacis Sur-Mer
Mahe
Dated: 19th Nov 2007
Dear Sir James
Please let me first welcome you back to
The public at large is, by all accounts, confused over the stated reasons given by Reverend Ramkalawan for ending the Alliance with DP. This newspaper has been inundated with enquiries as to your personal opinion on the current situation. Reverend Ramkalawan, it seems, is now changing his approach of confrontational politics to one of engaging the government of the day and has even pronounced the need to work together with the incumbent. An approach advocated by yourself, Sir James, on your return into the country after the re-introduction of a pluralistic political system.
On behalf of Le Nouveau Seychelles Weekly and all our patrons it would be most appreciated if you, as our very first Chief Minister, first Prime Minister, first President of the Republic of Seychelles and the first official Leader of Opposition, to oblige us with your views on the latest political developments. We seek your opinion especially because of your stance right from the very beginning, for National Reconciliation, though popular with the majority in Seychelles, but rejected by the populace at the polls.
We look forward to your usual cooperation.
Yours Sincerely
Ralph G. Volcere
(Editor)
20th November, 2007
Mr Ralph Volcere
Editor
Le Nouveau
Dear Mr Volcere
Thank you for your letter of the 19th November, 2007, inviting me to comment on the dark clouds of “growing confusion” which hangs today over
After the Second World War, France and Germany were nations deeply hostile to each other. After all, the Germans had occupied many parts of
I have just received a copy of the Raporteur’s Report of the World Congress of the Association of Non-Governmental Organisation (WANGO) which was held in Toronto, Canada, some days ago and I would like to quote what the Raporteur, Mr Gordon Anderson, wrote about what I said at the conference on the difference between a “Politician” and a “Statesman.”
“Much other great wisdom was present at this conference. Sir James R. Mancham, first President of a post-colonial Seychelles, argued that there is a difference between a “Politician” and a “Statesman”. Politicians negotiate interests and navigate the political terrain of the moment, while a Statesman provides true leadership, and gets a Nation from point A to point B – bringing all people along. The post-World War II era has created a lot of politicians but few statesmen. Statesmen are characterized by vision, by values, and by negotiating skills that seek the best solutions for all people. Politicians act primarily for themselves in the short term.”
It is in the spirit of statesmanship that after 15 years of forced exile, from the first day of my return to Seychelles on the 12th of April, 1992 - I openly, publicly and unequivocally declared that I had returned as the “Apostle of National Reconciliation.”
As already documented, these are some of the statements I made at that time when I spoke about the need for a Grand Coalition and the formation of a Government of National Unity:-
• A Party may have a majority and be able to rule but that does not mean the ability to consolidate social harmony and ensure internal happiness and stability.
• Confrontational politics result in the creation and perpetuation of what I call “Political Tribalism” – a situation where scarce talent and resources, instead of uniting for the common good and interest, are wasted in the creation of division and the promotion, at times, of artificial issues.
• National Reconciliation is above all a healing process which is based on a genuine desire to promote more internal harmony and less social tension so that the overall national interest takes priority over partisan consideration.
• In the pursuit of National Reconciliation, some things are better forgotten than said. Silence sometimes becomes golden. It is, however, recognized that there is no action without a reaction and that deeds speak louder than words. But above all, one must make it a point to avoid rubbing salt in old wounds.
• It is true that with their majority, the SPPF can decide and impose but do they really wish to remind themselves of all the tragedies and problems which characterized the Second Republic and for which they are responsible?
• For one thing, I only represent a part of the political equation of this country, and Reconciliation cannot be a one way process if it is to be of a lasting nature.
• National Reconciliation should not be regarded as an end in itself. It is rather a base from which to start. There is a tide in the affairs of a country which rises only on rare occasions. The importance is for the Leadership within a nation to know when this tide is up and to seize it.
• At the moment, it is clear that President René and myself are regarded more or less as “Father Figures” – each enjoying special influence within the community. It is therefore incumbent on us to turn the prevailing “rapprochement” into something positive and lasting for the Nation.
Unfortunately, Reverend Wavel Ramkalawan was not prepared for such sorts of talks and he and the Party he led made it a point to organize a systematic campaign against me – proclaiming that I had fallen under the influence of President F.A René and the SPPF – and that as far as he and his Party are concerned, René and his associates had to be eradicated at all cost by a “Saboule” attitude. His sentiments in this respect found a final echo in the party’s song, “Nou Pa Pou Zanmen Les Tonbe.”
In September 1997, I wrote in the ‘Seychelles Review’ thus – “I do not think that there are much differences between the Democratic Party and the so-called United Opposition, except that one takes a constructive posture and the other, a destructive one, as far as the overall long-term national interest is concerned. One is interested in creating a climate conducive to the emergence of a broad fraternal base among the people of Seychelles in the interest of all – and the other one is interested in seeking power for the benefit of a few – one would like a delusion of political polarization, the other one would like perpetuation of a hate and love divide which would leave the Nation split into two main factions. Against such a background, how do you draw an agenda for talks?”
Now, after 10 years, we hear and read that Opposition Leader Ramkalawan has gone to State House to speak to President James Michel about possible “collaboration”. Is this a positive move? The answer is ‘yes’. It is certainly a move in the right direction. The reason I gave for wanting to move towards “Reconciliation” is as valid today as it was 10 years ago.
But, will the “rapprochement” last and unity prevail? The answer is that whilst I hope it does, all indications unfortunately point to the contrary. Why?
By his recent general behaviour and particularly by his recent utterances and behaviour over the Frank Elizabeth’s affair, it has become clear to everyone that Mr Ramkalawan is a political leader with no serious clout for statesmanship.
Frank Elizabeth is himself an ambitious political animal and with SBC going out of its way to give him special publicity – Ramkalawan became deeply infuriated and saw his leadership role in the National Assembly being significantly diminished as Elizabeth gained more and more popular acclaim for his interventions.
To suggest that the sacking of
To break up the
I have stated and will continue to state that a
Has President Michel got the necessary qualities and force of character to move from being a mere politician to statesmanship? Since he assumed office, President Michel has spoken a lot about wishing to bring National Unity and Reconciliation within the Nation. Against this background, we could say that he has displayed a desire to move towards a leadership of statesmanship. But making statements is one thing and taking concrete actions to back the statements is another thing.
President Michel is, unfortunately, caught-up within the SPPF structure. Up to now, he is not entirely his own man. In order to keep his Presidential head above water – he has to do a lot of political navigating. He is certainly aware that at least half of the Seychellois people sided with the Opposition in the last Presidential Election – and that 75% of the intelligentia in
In the final analysis, President Michel must make up his mind as to whether he wishes to go down in history just as a mere partisan leader or as a great Seychellois who took over the leadership of a divided Nation and brought about unity and fair play.
The process of National Reconciliation is an attempt to bring forth as high a level of national cohesion as possible so that, united as a people, we can seek what is best for the Nation and not just what is best for the Party. It is obvious that political division has deprived us with the opportunity of reaching a higher plateau of national grandeur and prestige. We can, therefore, either continue to swim in the lake of mediocrity or seek to swim in a lake with a larger and better vista.
Bien a vous Monsieur Editeur.
Yours sincerely
James R. Mancham
