Safeguarding The Public Interest

It is not only the political landscape but also the economic structure which must be systemically reformed

While contracting a political alliance in the context of general elections, the leaders of political parties are free to dispose of what is within their prerogatives and authority to share such as the number of tickets and constituencies from where their candidates can stand for elections. However, in the process, they can surely not allow themselves the licence to horse trade the Constitution of the country to broker a political alliance.

The Constitution is not theirs to dispose of or despoil. In a democracy the right to review the Constitution or the supreme law of the land can only belong to and rest with the people of the country.

Negotiating political alliances prior to facing general elections has been an intrinsic aspect of politicking in Mauritius. In the nine elections post independence, we have witnessed a rotating musical chair of alliances of the main political parties when allegiances and political partners were repeatedly and blithely swapped in a dizzying merry-go-round without any qualms, driven by the relentless pursuit of power.

At each election, the electorate in its collective wisdom adjusted to either sanction the party/alliance which had aroused its displeasure or in some instances vote for the less objectionable coalition at the polls. The history of general elections is replete with examples of censure of parties or incumbent governments by the electorate. It attests to the pivotal role of the people in our democracy which has earned the plaudits of le pep admirab. The crying object lesson from the election results is that the silent multitude of voters have more political sense and are more savvy about who to vote for at elections than those making high brow analyses and prognoses in drawing rooms.

Questions of legitimacy

However, the present alliance is materially different. At no time have these past alliances transgressed the red line of encroaching on the people’s prerogatives to barter the Constitution as a negotiating chip to contract a political alliance. Such an approach demeans our democracy as it is carried out at the back of the people. The terms of the alliance which relate to profound changes to the Constitution to suit a power sharing arrangement decided by two political leaders without consulting the people and obtaining its formal consent, therefore raises questions of legitimacy.

In parliamentary democracies such as the UK or India, it is also unprecedented that the ruling Prime Minister (PM) should enter into a power sharing alliance with his own constitutional counterpart and opponent, the Leader of the Opposition, when the country is neither faced with any calamity or crisis such as a war. The main opposition party provides the people with the option of an alternative government provided it can rally the electorate to support its programme of government, the candidates it fields and its general policy framework. Such an alliance therefore saps and undermines democracy as it engenders a political vacuum in the opposition political space. Without a credible and potent opposition capable of providing an alternative government to the people and being a diligent watchdog of government, the country would be akin to a banana republic or worse a totalitarian ‘Animal Farm’.

Given the sorry state of politicking and political ethics in the country, it provides a golden opportunity for the emergence of a credible and truly national party manned by the multi-skilled young talent of the country capable through their altruistic and nobler ethos to rally at the polls mainstream Mauritius around a transformative and inclusive ‘projet de société’. Such a national project should be anchored on simple rules of good governance, transparency, meritocracy in both public and private sector employment, a policy framework with a strong social content, a structural reform of the economy to democratise the entrepreneurial space and a true consolidation of our democracy in order to establish a better political and socio-economic order for all.

It is interesting to note that some of the media who were traditionally supporting the leader of the MMM have provoked his incensed ire by arguing last week that the power sharing balance between him and the future President is skewed in favour of the President. This should be an eye opener and a wakeup call for those who are naively blind to the seedy under currents of Mauritian politics. Faced with the repeated inability of winning at the polls, what seems to be important for the diehards is who wields real power at the head of the State and calls the shots. For the smooth functioning of the country and the confidence of economic actors, what is crucial is to have one unequivocal centre of government power capable with the advice of a professionally able and competent support team, of decisive decision making and policy framing ability.

The alliance is already planning to seemingly jointly manage the affairs of the State without the legitimacy of being first voted in at the next polls. From press reports, we are advised that the leader of the MMM has in the wake of the alliance already initiated a process of regular discussions on a selected check list of national issues with the PM which inter alia include the energy sector and the Light Railway Transport project, matters on which he had repeatedly expressed divergent views. Isn’t high time that the major policy and implementing decisions of the country regarding key sectors of the economy be grounded on national interests and sound expert technical advice?

Sacred cows and public interest

For example, a laudable initiative to promote the public good and national interests is evidenced by the recently published booklet ‘Banking your future – Towards a fair and inclusive banking sector’ by the Bank of Mauritius ( BOM). In a well structured format recommending an action plan, the booklet responds to the growing clamour from the banking public that ‘banking services are too expensive’ and that ‘they are being unfairly treated’ against a background where banks are generating ’substantial profits’. The Bank of Mauritius has acted as the repeated calls from the Governor of the Bank of Mauritius to the banks to address the concerns of their customers have remained unheeded.

The BOM has mapped the issues. Its recommendations are work in progress as it has in a participative mode requested comments from the public to further fine-tune its recommendations for the common good of Mauritius, its economic actors and banking citizens alike. After 46 years of independence, shouldn’t banks have themselves taken substantive initiatives in this respect before the BOM having to rap them on the knuckles, especially in the difficult economic context afflicting economic operators? Apart from culling the plethora of excessive fees being charged as listed in the BOM booklet, there is need if we are to become an e-economy not to charge as in the UK Internet banking fees to enable the payment of utility bills, effect transfers and other similar banking transactions within the country.

This protective and entrenched mindset of a bygone era when modern Mauritius requires a fundamental change in approach calls for pervasive structural reform to do away with monopolies and systemic bottlenecks in order to open the entrepreneurial space and unleash more widespread entrepreneurship for the common good. Why should vested interests continue to be safeguarded against the public good in the teeth of the crying evidence for a sea change in policy? Is it not time in modern Mauritius for the Corporate sector which derives wealth from the country to give commensurate weight to the public interest?

Similarly, let us take the energy sector which has for more than a year been the subject of rabid divisions fuelled by partisan politics. There has never been a blackout of electricity resulting from a deficit in supply in Mauritius. The National Energy Commission after examining the supply/demand situation in the 2014-2016 period concluded in its October 2013 report that ‘there will not be any power deficit’ during that period if its recommendations are implemented. Yet there is a concerted scaremongering regarding the risk of a blackout in the country.

The plain fact is that, with a dwindling cane production owing to abandonment of cultivation by planters due to falling prices and a paltry revenue from bagasse, the present share of bagasse-generated electricity derived from currently used technology remains presently stuck at some 18% of the national electricity requirements and are expected to fall. The rest of our electricity requirements will, apart from green energy production from solar energy farms, biogas or residual waste or other feedstock combustion or wind energy farms required to meet the MID target of producing 35% of renewable energy by 2025, have to be produced from non renewable sources of mainly coal and petroleum products. The change in this overall picture can only be brought about by viable developments in new green technologies producing affordable energy from for example plant substrate. Oil prices, the cost of feedstock and the proven state of any new technology arbitrates the viability of such projects.

Most counties in the world face the same dilemma. For example, in France most of the electricity production is from nuclear power stations whereas in the UK gas has overtaken coal as the main source of electricity production. Why then the futile hype?

The only driving considerations in allocating any coal based power plant should be the cost of the unit electricity exported to the grid, its environmentally safe technology, its long term viability and the public interest. We should recall that the mistakes of the past re the indexation of electricity price on fueloil and coal costs as well as economic indices secured in well-cemented contracts have not served the public interest. Those who for long enjoyed these leonine advantages thought only of preserving their interests rather than those of the nation. The public interest must prevail when the PPP’s are to be renegotiated.

It is not only the political landscape but also the economic structure which must be systemically reformed through a new approach aimed at ensuring that the national interests prevail over an entrenched culture of protecting one’s sacred cows at the expense of the public good. This is a challenge which the young of the country must earnestly take to usher a better and more inclusive order for the benefit of all.


* Published in print edition on 19 September 2014

An Appeal

Dear Reader

65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.

With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.

The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *