Soon after grabbing power in a coup d’etat in 1977, Albert Rene declared that
All the meetings were taped by Ibrahim Afif on behalf of the then Radio
One of those intellectuals who took the brave step to publicly condemn the machination was Mrs Paulette Gamble, then a senior civil servant who published a letter in the weekly newspaper Weekend Life. Mrs Gamble is the sister of Patrick Pillay, our current Minister of Foreign Affairs. The following week it was announced that Mrs Gamble had been sacked and soon afterwards she and her husband, a British-born civil engineer who owned a contracting firm, left the country for good. The one-party state was dully declared in time for Rene to be elected the new President of Seychelles as the sole candidate of the only party allowed to exist, the SPPF.
Paulette Gamble’s letter revealed just how farsighted she was. It’s a pity that few people were prepared to voice their concerns at the time.
To Messrs P.
Dear Madam and Sirs,
With reference to the proposed Constitution, I have the following comments to make:
One
You state that the open meeting held, the “substantial proportion of the population favoured a one-party state”. It is no secret that the overwhelming number of people who attended these meetings were supporters of the previous SPUP party, in Mahe especially, the supporters of the SDP felt intimidated and frightened to express an opinion. In Praslin, for example, where, due to their geographical remoteness, people have not been subjected to the same pressure as in Mahe, the meetings voted for a two party state. I maintain that the survey was neither fair nor representative of all the population of
The argument you use against having a referendum on the subject of the one-party state is that “unless the structure of the proposed one party state is known, choice cannot be meaningful”. But we do know what will be the structure of the proposed one-party state. It is stated that the one-party should be the Seychelles People’s Progressive Font with all its attendant rules and structures.
There is a lot to be said for the one-party state, and should the majority of the electorate prefer a one- party system, then the party should be more based in order to attract as many persons as possible. The present party proposed, the SPPF, is nothing more than the SPUP under a different name and excludes by its very nature any non-SPUP. Since one has to be a “declared” socialist to belong to SPPF, this means that anyone who is not a socialist has no right to belong to a political party. This is a deplorable state of affairs and contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, furthermore, contrary to the Draft Instructions of Charting Our Course in which the human rights of freedom of opinion and expression are cited as ones which will be promoted in the Constitution.
The following objections follow from the type of one party system proposed.
The President and the Executive
The proposed method of putting the one party’s candidate forward for election to the Presidency on a yes/no basis is a guarantee of that candidate’s election, no matter what you say. The Party will control all the methods of propaganda including the Government press and radio. Will the state allow persons to campaign for a “no” vote? Most unlikely! In all the countries of the world with one party state, has that candidate ever been turned down? The proposed system has more in common with the
Appointment of Ministers
The method of the President appointing his ministers appears very dubious. The Executive Committee having ensured that their candidate has been elected President will reap reward. It is no coincidence that the present Ministers are all members of the Executive Committee of the SPPF. This method of the President appointing his ministers ensures that those ministers who could not win an election even in one party state are rewarded because of their previous alliance with the President – “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours?”
MINISTERS SHOULD BE CHOSEN FROM THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
“The rationale is that they (the ministers) should be considered as technicians selected by the President for their competence in carrying out whatever tasks may be assigned to them” you say. Since when have ministers been involved in the technical work necessary in their Ministries? To cap it all, the justification for the President choosing his Ministers it to “avoid any possible compromises that approval by the People’s Assembly might involve.” Is this an example of the wishes of the “people” being supreme and their having a say in the running of their country? Is this Government by the “people”?
Proposals
(A) If a one party system then the present SPPF should be disbanded and a party of genuine national unity formed. The Presidential candidate could then be put forward by the Party of National Unity for ratification by the electorate. Some thought could be given as to whether or not independent candidates should be allowed to stand against the Party’s candidate. The President then appoints his ministers from the members of the Legislative Assembly in order that they are responsible for their Ministers actions.
(B) If two or more parties are approved by a simple majority, then the present proposed Constitution should be thrown out in its entirety and a new constitution drawn up.
I believe that the above proposals are not only substantially more democratic than those proposed but will also give a better political solution. The proposed Constitution will alienate a large section of the community and this in the long term creates political instability.
All of us in
Yours faithfully
Paulette Gamble