SNP - Ready for the future?

In a recent article in Regar dated January 15th 2010, Wavel Ramkalawan claims that SNP is ready for the future. In the article he writes that SNP has to be ready to make the future best for everyone and that the SNP has to be agents for real change.

According to Ramkalawan, SNP has always shown that Seychelles is constantly under its microscope and that is the reason why they have been able to present 'solid proposals for the development of the country'. He also says that 'What is good for Seychelles is good for the SNP'. I can sincerely believe that SNP has had Seychelles under its microscope as the party has absolutely no general overview of the country and teh ongoings as it has focused entirely on a microscopic part of it.

What part of Seychelles they have had under the microscope however there is no mention of, but a critic like myself would say that the SNP has been focusing one thing: keeping Ramkalawan as leader of the opposition. I can also as a critic say that the SNP has truly lived by the words 'what is good for Seychelles is good for SNP, as since the last election the SNP has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to promote themselves, hence unpromote the PL, and therefore get a true shot at gaining power in the coming election. They have in other woprds truly accepted that PL is good enough for Seychelles, hence good enough for the SNP.

The article claims that the SNP has withing the forst 15 days of 2010 already proved that they are relvant and effective as a political party by issuing a phampet saying that PUC's increase of prices was wrong. The SNP even went further to suggest bringing the subject up in a constitutional court case to challenge the decision. We continuously hear that the ministery of finance is useless at, yes, finance, but now I am also beginnign to think that the SNP lacks knowledge and competency in finance. One of the SNP's main fights in the past has been privatisation, free competition and not least less state control. Now that the PUC is being managed by a private firm and is no longer subsidized as bedfore, the SNP finds it wrong that is is to be run as a business instead of a non-profit organization. What do they want? I fully understand the frustration of the people who now have to pay more for PUC's services, but it is after a side effect of what we asked for is it not?

One good thing I was pelased to read about in the article is that Ramkalawan states clearly that the SNP does not only work to win elections. I couldn't agree more as he finally has admitted that he is not interested in winning any election, merely stay as a bystander and accept whatever is 'good for Seychelles', meaning whatever the majority votes for, i.e the PL. I'd think that a party who wants the best for the country would be able to deliver the best if they were in power. Obviously that does not apply for the SNP who is not interested in winning the coming elections.

Ramkalawan states that the SBC does not take the SNP seriously and cuts them short each time they do something. I must say tat to be able to deserve live time on SBC one must actually do and achieve something. Last year for instance James Michel and the PL held consultative meetings in the various districts. Those meetings gave the SNP a gleaming opportunity to participate amongst the people and challenge the PL delegation hosting them, an opportunity to speak and be heard. SNP's leader did not attend a single one of those meetings and paved the way for Michel to space for himself in the political spotlight.

The LOP says that the SNP is ready to face the challenges in assembly where they will not be given the same chance to present their views as the PL will and hence end up on SBC. To that I can agree with Ramkalawan that the SBC is controlled by the PL and will favour PL's views as any partial media organ will show loyalty and favourism to its party. The same applies for Nation as it does to Regar and Seychelles Weekly. One would think wether or not this kind of unfair system would encourage and motivate a party leader to leads its flock so that they can get in power and end the unfairness they so complain about. Question is: would the SNP do any different if they were in power?

Ramkalawan says in the article's final chapter that (quote)

'The SNP is ready to keep fighting hard for the people of Seychelles, using its meagre resources to do its utmost. We are determined to see change in our land. We will never give up the struggle to give our people a normal life. We will be by their side all through the year. In other words, I am saying to everyone that the SNP is ready for the future. We will turn those challenges into real opportunities for our people. May everyone rise and join us in this commitment to bring the.....'

Bring the what? The article ends with a 'the' and I ask myself how on earth one can take Regar let alone Ramkalawan seriously if they cannot even be bothered to perform a quality assurance check of their own writings in their own newspaper? As to being devoted to giving the Seychellois a normal life I truly believe Ramkalawan will do his uttermost to give them just a normal life while he has anything but a normal life in plan for himself.

But saying that the SNP is ready for the future is I'm afraid perhaps the biggest exaggeration so far this year. Since their defeat in the last election SNP has not been ready let alone prepared foe anything and are certainly not prepared for the future. It is a mere year left before the coming election's campaigning starts for full and nothing has been done on the part of the SNP. PL has held consultative meetings, created the Jj Spirit amongst other propaganda tools. What has SNP done to counter-balance the PL's campaigning? The answer is I'm afraid not fit for public viewing.

And they claim to be ready for the future? They havn't been ready in the recent past, are still not ready for the present and are most certainly not even prepared for the future.

Patrick X