“A 60-0 mandate creates the conditions for decisive action…

Interview: Lillka Cuttaree

… it allows for structural reforms, for the strengthening of institutions”

* ‘Like many established parties, the MMM operates within its own internal dynamics…
…one can hope that moments of transition create space for greater clarity of purpose and more collegial forms of leadership’

* ‘Social media has fundamentally altered the political landscape. Influence is now more decentralised, more immediate, and often more emotional’

In this insightful interview, Lillka Cuttaree reflects on her 2024 entry into frontline politics as an independent candidate—a deliberate move to champion ideas-driven engagement over traditional party machinery. Drawing on her experience at a high level of policy and her deep-rooted militant heritage, Lillka Cuttaree discusses the “crisis of expectations” facing the Mauritian voter and the urgent need to shift from personality-driven politics to strong institutional frameworks. She offers a candid assessment of the current political climate, the challenges of party leadership, and the critical necessity of fostering a “delivery culture” that translates national vision into credible, sustained results. Lillka Cuttaree holds a Master’s degree in Economics and Industrial Strategy from Paris Dauphine University, an MBA from Sciences Po, and a Master in Public Administration from Harvard Kennedy School.

Mauritius Times: In 2024, you entered politics for the first time as an independent candidate, choosing a different path from the party where your father played a central role. Was this a personal decision to promote change and civic engagement, or was it driven by barriers within established parties and growing frustration with mainstream politics?

Lillka Cuttaree: Let me start by saying that my engagement with politics has always been shaped by exposure, reflection, and personal conviction. I was also socially active in the town of Rose Hill, to which I remain deeply and emotionally attached, particularly through my work with the JKC Foundation since 2019.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to meet and exchange with several major political leaders, notably around 2019 and again in 2024. These interactions, including those that followed the passing of my father, gave me valuable insight into different political cultures and leadership approaches.

At different moments, discussions around a potential candidacy did arise. Ultimately, both affinity and constraints matter — for individuals as well as for political parties. It is about alignment in values, but also about timing, loyalty, and the space available to engage meaningfully. For me, it was important to remain aligned with my convictions and the kind of contribution I wanted to make.

During the campaign period, I also observed how narratives can quickly take shape in the public space. It was a useful reminder of how perception and reality do not always align, and how important it is to remain grounded and consistent.

As for the Mouvement Militant Mauricien at that time, like many established parties, it operates within its own internal dynamics. Opportunities to emerge are often shaped by structures, expectations, and timing. One can hope that moments of transition create space for greater clarity of purpose and more collegial forms of leadership.

For me, the decision to run as an independent was ultimately a deliberate and positive one. I did not want to wait another five years to engage — I felt ready to step forward.

At the same time, political ecosystems evolve at their own pace. Readiness is not only individual; it is also collective. And perhaps the broader political landscape was still in transition.

* As a first-time candidate running without the support of established party machinery, what surprised you most about the electoral process, and how difficult was it to overcome the specific challenges of gaining visibility in the Mauritian political landscape?

What struck me most was the contrast in scale.

I was running with a very small team — fewer than ten people — who stood by me with remarkable commitment. There was no financial machinery behind us. I was not in a position topay them, I took the decision to run on the eve of the nomination day; the most I could offer was food over those two intense weeks of campaigning. Some have since returned to their everyday lives, others are still around — but I remain deeply grateful for what they gave.

My inner circle barely slept over those two weeks, taking care of the entire media campaign. It was an intense, almost grassroots effort, carried by belief rather than resources.

And yet, despite this reality, some detractors suggested that I was being financed by a political party. In a way, I took that as an unintended acknowledgment that the campaign had achieved a level of visibility that challenged expectations.

Looking around, the contrast was striking — the scale of posters, banners, structured programmes, night meetings, paid “baz”. It highlighted how much electoral dynamics are still driven by infrastructure and resources.

I entered this campaign fully aware that I was engaging in a different kind of battle — not to win votes through machinery, but to place ideas into the public space. And in that sense, it was successful. Because beyond the result, what matters is whether you shift conversations, even slightly.

* After experiencing the electoral process firsthand, has your perception of the Mauritian voter changed, and do you believe there is still genuine room forideas-driven politics in what often appears to be an increasingly transactional landscape?

My experience deepened my respect for the Mauritian voter.

Meeting families across the constituency of Rose Hill was a deeply meaningful experience. People were open, generous, often speaking about the legacy of my father, but also expressing very real concerns about their daily lives.

What struck me most was the nature of the expectations of the Mauritian voter. Many were not asking for abstract policy — they were asking for access, for security, and for stability. Requests for jobs in ministries or municipalities came up far more frequently than opportunities in the private sector.

This reflects something deeper. What we often describe as “conditional voting” is, in many cases, a rational response to economic vulnerability. When people are uncertain about their future, they turn to the structures they perceive as most stable.

We are facing a crisis of expectations. Citizens are no longer anchored in long-term loyalty, but they are also not fully confident that the system will deliver fairness and opportunity. What they are seeking is not just employment — it is dignity, recognition, and a sense that effort can lead to outcomes.

In that sense, I am reminded of what the American philosopher Michael Sandel explores in The Tyranny of Merit. When systems are perceived as unfair — when outcomes seem driven by access, influence, or proximity rather than fairness and shared dignity — a quiet sense of exclusion begins to take root.

And when that happens, the relationship between citizens and institutions inevitably shifts fairly.

* How do you assess the current political climate in Mauritius, particularly concerns that politics is becoming more personality-driven than policy-focused? In your view, what weaknesses in today’s political leadership may be contributing to this shift?

We are witnessing a shift toward more personality-driven politics, and this often reflects deeper structural weaknesses within our system.

When institutions are not sufficiently strong, and when policy frameworks lack continuity or clarity, public debate naturally gravitates toward individuals rather than ideas. In such contexts, personalities tend to fill the space that institutions should occupy.

There is also a growing tension between governance and politics. Governance requires long-term thinking, discipline, and coherence. Politics, increasingly, is shaped by immediacy — visibility, narrative, and short-term positioning.

We are, in many ways, managing the present — but not always preparing the future.

The risk is that we begin to confuse leadership with visibility, and decision-making with reaction. Over time, this weakens the ability of institutions to function independently and consistently.

What is needed today is a rebalancing — toward stronger institutional frameworks, more structured policy thinking, and a culture of leadership that values depth over immediacy.

Because ultimately, sustainable progress does not come from individuals alone — it comes from systems that are able to endure beyond them.

* In the current political climate, with tensions within the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) that could potentially split the party, how do you assess the quality of leadership, and what is truly being tested at this moment?

What is happening today goes beyond any single party, including the MMM.

We are witnessing a deeper transformation in how influence is shaped. Social media has fundamentally altered the political landscape. Influence is now more decentralised, more immediate, and often more emotional. Within minutes, opinions are shaped.

This creates both opportunity and fragility. It allows new voices to emerge and ideas to circulate more rapidly, but it also compresses time for reflection and can blur the line between perception and reality.

Influence has accelerated — but depth has not necessarily followed.

What is truly being tested today is the capacity of leadership to remain coherent in an environment that rewards immediacy. It requires the ability to navigate complexity, to resist oversimplification, and to anchor decisions in substance rather than reaction.

But beyond that, we also need to make a clearer distinction between authority and leadership. At times, we find ourselves focused on technical questions — such as who controls what — rather than engaging with the deeper issue of how leadership is exercised. Authority can settle procedural matters, but leadership is what brings people together, builds trust, and creates direction.

Perhaps the real question today is whether we are ready to move toward a more collaborative and purposeful style of leadership.

Ultimately, this is a test of maturity for all political actors — not only for the MMM, which has carried a legacy that deserves respect — but for our democratic culture as a whole.

* Drawing on your father’s insights into the forces and interests shaping political parties and alliances in the 1980s-90s  —  as reflected in his autobiography ‘Behind The Purple Curtain’—  do you see history repeating itself today?

History does not repeat itself exactly, but it often rhymes.

I was extremely close to my father and grew up immersed in political life — on the streets of Rose Hill, in meetings, in moments of mobilization and of course, in private conversations. I am, in many ways, a product of that militant culture.

What defined that era — particularly the 1980s — was a real flame. There was a willingness to challenge, to create from very little, and to commit fully to a cause. There was courage and sacrifice, but also a strong sense of collective purpose.

What is striking, looking back, is that politics was not framed around identity in the way we sometimes see today. I do not even recall conversations centred on ethnicity. Everything was oriented toward nation-building — toward Mauritianism as a shared project.

Today, we see a different dynamic. Engagement is more individualised, and at times, there is a drift toward forms of idolatry — where loyalty becomes centred around individuals rather than principles or ideas. This often leads to spaces closing rather than opening — limiting the emergence of new talent and discouraging challenge. The investment shifts from collective purpose to political goodwill.

We have also, at times, witnessed overwhelming electoral mandates being given without sufficient questioning of candidates or programmes. While this reflects trust, it can also point to a weakening of critical engagement in the democratic process.

That is where the real shift lies.

In a context shaped by rapid information flows and competing narratives, we underestimated that critical thinking may take more importance in the future. Citizens today are able to question, analyse, and distinguish between substance and perception.

So, while some structural patterns may remain, the deeper question is whether we are still anchored in the same sense of purpose. Because ultimately, history does not repeat itself through events — it repeats itself through the values we choose to uphold, or to abandon.

* In today’s climate of uncertainty, what should Mauritius’ immediate priorities be… with a view to maintaining stability and safeguarding both households and businesses?

Our immediate priority must be to preserve stability — economic, social, and institutional — but stability alone is no longer sufficient. We must also build resilience.

This means addressing core vulnerabilities such as food and energy security, while strengthening productivity across sectors. It also requires positioning Mauritius more strategically within its regional environment, particularly within Africa and the Indian Ocean, where new opportunities and risks are emerging simultaneously.

At the same time, we need to rethink how we design public policy. What we need is a stronger culture of scenario planning — the ability to anticipate different futures, test assumptions, and adapt strategies accordingly. In a world defined by uncertainty, resilience comes not from prediction, but from preparedness.

This also calls for better coordination between public and private actors, clearer prioritisation of strategic sectors, and a disciplined focus on execution. Because ultimately, the strength of a country lies not only in its vision, but in its ability to deliver on it in a consistent and credible way.

* Why do you think Mauritius struggles to push key initiatives forward?

Mauritius does not lack ideas — we struggle with execution.

Over the years, we have identified the right priorities, whether in food security, energy transition, the blue economy, or the development of new economic pillars. The challenge lies not in vision, but in our ability to translate that vision into sustained and coordinated action.

Too often, initiatives are announced without the systems required to deliver them. Execution cannot be assumed — it must be engineered. It requires continuity beyond political cycles, clear ownership of projects, measurable outcomes, and the right competencies within institutions.

There is also a tendency toward fragmentation. When responsibilities are diffused and coordination is weak, even well-conceived initiatives lose momentum and remain on the drawing board.

What we need is a stronger delivery culture — one that links ambition to implementation, and strategy to accountability. Because ultimately, the credibility of any system is not defined by the ideas it generates, but by the results it is able to consistently produce.

* Speaking of a culture of delivery, do you think Mauritius needs a dedicated, full-time driver within the Ministry of Finance?

The debate is less about whether the role is full-time, and more about policy execution.

The Ministry of Finance has always attracted strong talent. The challenge today is not the absence of competence, but how that competence is mobilised collectively. What matters is the ability to harness collective intelligence — to align expertise across institutions, break silos, and ensure that decisions are coordinated rather than fragmented.

Economic governance requires the capacity to navigate complexity, maintain strategic focus over time, and ensure continuity beyond political cycles. This demands not only technical skills, but also clarity of direction and strong coordination mechanisms.

At the same time, credibility is essential. Leadership in this space must be anchored in ethics and transparency. Without trust, even the most well-designed policies lose legitimacy and effectiveness.

Ultimately, what matters is not the structure, but the ability to deliver — consistently, coherently, and with integrity.

* What do you expect from a Prime Minister leading a 60-0 government to achieve within his government’s mandate?

A 60-0 mandate is not just a concentration of power — it is a rare moment of clarity and responsibility.

It removes ambiguity and creates the conditions for decisive action. It allows for structural reforms, for the strengthening of institutions, and for the implementation of policies without the constraints of political fragmentation.

At the same time, we must recognise that even within such a mandate, governance is rarely monolithic. A coalition, in reality, often functions as a set of factions, each with its own priorities, expectations, and internal dynamics. Understanding this helps us better appreciate thecomplexity of leadership and the balancing act required to maintain cohesion while driving reform.

But with that comes a higher level of expectation.

What I would expect is not only delivery, but direction — the ability to move beyond short-term management toward long-term transformation. This means reinforcing institutional frameworks, restoring trust, and ensuring that policies are coherent, consistent, and anchored in the public interest.

It is also an opportunity to redefine the tone of leadership — toward something more inclusive, more transparent, and more accountable.

Beyond governance, there is also a need for inspiration. Citizens are not only looking for results; they are looking for meaning, for coherence, and for a sense that they are part of a collective project.

As John F. Kennedy once said:

“Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

Perhaps this is what such a mandate should ultimately enable — a reset in the relationship between leadership and citizens, where responsibility is shared and trust becomes the foundation of progress.

* Does our current political culture allow a Prime Minister to act as a guardian of the public interest?

The role of a Prime Minister is, fundamentally, to act as a guardian of the public interest. But this responsibility cannot rest on individuals alone — it must be supported by strong institutions, clear rules, and a culture of accountability.

I am genuinely concerned about the perceived level of corruption within certain institutions. As organisations like Transparency consistently highlight, perception matters as much as reality. When citizens begin to question the fairness of decisions, trust gradually erodes — and once trust is weakened, the entire system becomes fragile.

But beyond concern, we need to shift how we frame the issue. Corruption is not only a matter of individual behaviour — it is often a reflection of how systems are designed. When incentives are misaligned, when processes lack transparency, or when accountability is uneven, the system itself creates space for distortion.

Restoring trust therefore requires more than enforcement — it requires rebuilding fairness in a way that is both visible and experienced. Transparency must become the norm.

Decision-making must be traceable. Responsibility must be clear.

Ultimately, safeguarding the public interest requires more than authority — it requires courage, consistency, and the ability to build systems where integrity becomes the natural outcome of how governance is structured.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 3 April 2026