25th Anniversary of Independence

Interview with Former President James Richard Mancham

Seychelles Nation: Mr Mancham how do you feel about celebrating 25 years of our country’s independence?

James Richard Mancham: Over the last 25 years we have trodden along a very melodramatic path. Independence was followed by a Coup d’Etat, the establishment of a One Party State;  there has been a military mutiny, a mercenary invasion, and an attempted coup. All very sad. But then has come the transition greatly influenced by my philosophy of reconciliation. Against this background was born the Third Republic under which the challenge continues for true nation building. Truly speaking I am of mixed emotions. I do not know whether to laugh or cry. However, I thank God Almighty that I am still alive and able today to speak my mind.

S.N. Mr Mancham during the days of the colonial rule you were for a long time against the idea of Seychelles being  independent – although you eventually accepted it. If the same thing was to happen again, would you have acted in the same way?

JRM: I have always been a visionary – more interested in the welfare of the people than in the acquisition of power. As such I saw in the retention of links with Britain a way of getting Seychelles integrally involved within Europe with the Seychellois therefore enjoying the same benefits and privileges as the people of La Reunion enjoy today by virtue of their association with France. Though La reunion does not have a seat in the UN (Seychelles has one – but at the moment is unable to vote because it has not been able to pay its dues). True we would not have had a flag and a passport of our own but a British/EEC passport would have given us the right of entry and employment within all countries of the European Community and the enjoyment of a hard currency at all times, social security benefits, etc. Obviously there are two sides of every coin. Although many things negative have been uttered about Britain and the British. You just have to read the newspapers to realise how many from all over the world are seeking an abode in UK even to the extent of becoming illegal immigrants.

S.N.: Some people who claim to know you very well say that if you had not known that Mr Rene had formed a political party, you would never have created one yourself. The proof, so they say, is that you have campaigned against and won over the candidate for the Planters’ Association, Tony d’Offay, without the backing of a party. Is this affirmation correct?

JRM: I do not know what you are trying to suggest or imply by this question. A Political Party is formed by a group of people who share the same political philosophy and therefore decides to form a cohesion to pursue that philosophy. The Democratic Party was formed by a group of Seychellois under my leadership at a time when we felt that a cohesion had become necessary.

S.N.: In 1964 when you learned that Mr Rene had formed his own party, the aim of which was to fight for Independence, you wrote to the Minister of State of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, R. Butler, to dissociate yourself completely from the idea of Independence. Are you in a position to tell us why you took this stance and what was the answer you received from the British minister?

JRM: Mr Rene’s party was formed in the UK and immediately upon its formation it proclaimed a policy of “Independence or else…”. The party had no mandate to seek for independence and it became urgently necessary to bring to the attention of the British Government who, at that time, had adopted a policy to grant independence on the asking. The Minister replied that the British Government was committed to give effect to the wish of the people of the colony. Subsequent events clearly showed that “Integration with UK” constituted an uphill challenge for us – but not “Independence” for although we won two one-man one-vote elections on the premise of closer links, the British took no initiative whatever in this direction. For this reason it is not fair for the SPUP to call itself a Party of Liberation. When the “master” is eager to let you go – and trying to find a way to let you go – the use of the word “Liberation” becomes a farce in our historical context.

S.N.: Mr Mancham there is one thing which remains unexplained in your political life. When you entered into politics, you started by standing against certain types of discrimination, without fearing to provoke the anger of the Church by denouncing the discrimination that this institution applied to the dead based on whether they had been rich or poor. Some of your convictions even affected the business of your father. Why didn’t you pursue in the direction?

JRM: I have always been, by conviction and practice, against any discrimination based on colour, race or creed and have never faltered in this area. Your question “why didn’t you pursue in that direction” suggests that you have, at sometime or another, been the victim of some political indoctrination put in place to portray me in the wrong light. You should not swallow all what SBC says.

S.N.: How far have you reached in the organisation of a forum for peace and reconciliation in Seychelles?

JRM: My initial idea was to promote a Forum for Reconciliation, Peace and Prosperity which was to meet in Seychelles. This Forum was to have had a regional dimension. As you know the Government of Seychelles had declared itself morally supportive of the initiative but like anything else, necessary funding had to be identified. In this respect UNDP New York had agreed in principle, to back the initiative as much as possible and in this connection financed Mr Max Gaylard, a former Director General of Political Affairs at the Commonwealth Secretariat to come to Seychelles and report on the prospect of the Forum. Mr Gaylard’s report  was positive. However, at that time my initiative had come to the knowledge of such well-funded organisations like the International Federation for World Peace, the African Leadership Forum and the Free Africa Foundation, these organisations inviting me to join them to play an active role in the search of peace, reconciliation and prosperity internationally. Naturally when your involvement becomes global the regional interest is automatically incorporated.

S.N.: Mr Mancham regardless of your differences, you and President Rene enjoy a certain relationship that could serve as a source of inspiration for many parties in opposition in young democracies. Is this attitude purely tactical because of the strength of your two parties, or is it the upshot of a shared philosophy?

JRM: Mr Rene and myself have known each other for a long time before we both became politically involved. As political leaders our views on Seychelles constitutional developments did not coincide but, I believe, that over the years, especially during the coalition, we developed a certain admiration for each other’s political astuteness and capacity to work and deliver.

I deplored the coup and many things which took  place thereafter. However, it was obvious to me on returning to Seychelles after many years in exile that it was in the best interest of the country for me to adopt the role of “Apostle for National Reconciliation” and to find a modus vivendi with Mr Rene. I believe that Mr Rene and a lot of his intelligent supporters became appreciative of my lack of vindictiveness and of my commitment to put the interest of Seychelles above all. Of course, after the transition I have made it a point to always respect the structure of State, and to strictly follow the concept that dirty linen should be washed within the family.

S.N. – Have you a special message for the people of Seychelles on the occasion of this 25th Anniversary of Independence?

JRM: On the 8th of July I will be addressing a Public Rally at the Music Stadium on the State of the Nation. Within this address will be my message for the Seychellois people to become truly united in peace, harmony and brotherhood.

LINKS