A Call for Change

Editorial

A fresh start often comes with high expectations. Yet, only months into its tenure, the Alliance du Changement finds itself under pressure. The coalition that promised sweeping reforms and a new style of governance is already showing signs of strain. While not at the brink of collapse, it is clear that the path to a revitalized democracy is proving far more complex than the simple act of winning an election. The euphoria of victory has given way to unease among leaders and a sense of frustration among citizens.

This is not just political theatre staged by opponents, but a reality shaped by missteps. At the centre of the government’s difficulties lie two sensitive issues: the introduction of pension reform, which — though arguably necessary — was poorly explained, and a series of controversial public appointments. The pension reform in particular sparked a sharper backlash than expected, leaving many parliamentarians struggling to defend it. The government’s response has often seemed uncertain, marked by hesitant communication and an air of detachment from public concerns.

The paradox is stark. After a decade of what many viewed as heavy-handed governance, the public expected a new era — one based on consultation, empathy, and meritocracy. Citizens, eager for a break with the past, sense too much continuity and too little change. The lack of wide consultation on important decisions, coupled with the persistence of political appointments, has fed the perception of “business as usual.”

Old habits in new times

This situation is further complicated by the leadership styles of the alliance’s two central figures. The elder co-architect of the coalition, known for his determination and tactical instinct, has remained consistent in his approach, even at eighty. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, a veteran in his own right, has leaned on familiar strategies — appointing long-standing allies to key positions. While understandable from a perspective of loyalty and trust, this preference has disappointed those who hoped for new faces and a fresh direction. The result is an administration that feels highly personalized, with echoes of old political habits.

In many ways, the government is a prisoner of its own history. Mauritian politics has long been shaped by strong personalities and party leaders who dominate decision-making. Institutions, though formally established, often play second fiddle to personal authority. This culture, deeply rooted in decades of practice, makes genuine reform difficult. Citizens may have underestimated the resilience of these habits and overestimated the willingness of leaders to abandon them.

The government’s loss of momentum is largely self-inflicted. Despite having time to signal a break from the past, it has so far failed to move decisively on symbolic reforms — such as a Freedom of Information Act, or clearer rules for public appointments. Citizens are not looking for miracles, but they do seek visible signs of renewal. Without them, assurances that “things are different” sound unconvincing.

Even modest initiatives — such as town hall consultations, citizen advisory panels, or merit-based open competitions for top public posts — could have gone a long way in building trust. These do not require vast financial resources but rather a shift in mindset. By failing to grasp the symbolic importance of such measures, the government has left space for disappointment to grow.

Friction Within the Alliance

Talk of a potential rift within the alliance may be premature, but it highlights underlying discontent. The junior partner, whose support was crucial in defeating the previous government, now appears sidelined. Its leader, without a substantive ministerial role, risks being overshadowed by the Prime Minister. His occasional public displays of frustration may be tactics to negotiate influence, but they also suggest that communication within the alliance is far from seamless.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has opted for silence in response to his alliance partner’s remarks — a strategy that reinforces his authority but also leaves tensions unresolved. For the junior partner, any misstep in handling this delicate balance could prove costly, particularly if its members choose stability with the senior partner over loyalty to their leader. In a parliamentary system where numbers matter above all, the loyalty of individual MPs can shift quickly, making political survival an ever-present concern.

What this moment underscores is the fragility of political alliances and the persistence of old political cultures. The current partnership was born of necessity rather than natural affinity. Historical ties with other players in the political arena remain strong, and these deeper loyalties could at any time complicate the present arrangement.

Mauritian politics has always thrived on shifting alliances, sudden ruptures, and unlikely reconciliations. Parties that seem bitterly opposed today often find common ground tomorrow, united by convenience rather than principle. Voters, weary of this cycle, were looking for something different in the Alliance du Changement. They wanted not just a new coalition, but a new way of doing politics altogether. The disappointment stems from the perception that old instincts continue to dominate, regardless of the party label.

Legacies and Last Chances

Both leaders, now in the later stages of their careers, are acutely aware that their legacy is at stake. This may well be their final opportunity to leave behind a lasting, positive mark. To let personal ambition or entrenched habits derail that chance would be a profound disservice to the country.

The public’s expectations are not extravagant. What is being asked is simple: integrity, transparency, and a genuine commitment to reform. The old ways of political deals and personal networks cannot deliver this. What is needed is courage to depart from the familiar, even if it means letting go of long-standing loyalties.

There is still time. The government can reset its course by prioritizing reforms that matter most to ordinary citizens: accountability in public appointments, real consultation on major policies, and stronger institutions that outlast individual leaders. These steps would send a clear message that the Alliance du Changement is not just another name for continuity but a genuine attempt at renewal.

In the end, the question remains whether the leaders of today can rise above old practices and fulfil the promise of renewal. The structures of party politics and coalition governments are unlikely to change. True transformation must therefore come from leadership itself — leadership willing to prove that the change it promised was real, not rhetorical.

The nation waits for this signal. What it expects is proof that the call for change was more than a slogan. What is at stake is not only the reputation of two veteran politicians, but the very credibility of the political system. If the current administration cannot embody the change it promised, public trust will continue to erode — and with it, the stability on which Mauritius prides itself. Leaders would do well to remember that a mandate is not a blank cheque. It is a responsibility to govern differently, to listen more, and to serve with humility.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 22 August 2025