Of Pensions and the Perils of Longevity

Satire

By Plutonix

The setting is contemporary Mauritius, yet the dilemma is timeless: the clash between promised social security and grim fiscal reality. The newly elected Alliance du Changement (ADC) government, citing the financial ruin left by its predecessors, has announced a drastic pension reform, forcing citizens to work five years longer. Here, the great Athenian philosopher Socrates — a stranger to modern budgets but no stranger to virtue — finds the recently “un-retired” Cephalus, an elder raging against the tyranny of arithmetic. In this humorous dialogue, they grapple with the true meaning of justice when the cost of living long collides with the price of governance, and the pursuit of a dignified retirement is complicated by spreadsheet terrorism and the lingering scent of political profligacy.

Characters:

• Socrates: The tireless philosopher, slightly exasperated by the modern political theatre, and still seeking to define the true nature of “justice” in an era of fiscal collapse.
• Cephalus: The recently “un-retired” elder. He is deeply invested in the immediate, tangible aspects of the social contract — namely, his promised pension and the right to a comfortable nap.

Setting: A gathering in Port Louis. A massive, slightly damp protest banner reading “60 ANS, C’EST ASSEZ! — NOUS SOMMES FATIGUÉS!” flutters in the background. Cephalus is trying, and failing, to unfold a complicated government information leaflet.

Socrates: Good Cephalus! By the beard of Zeus, you look less like a serene sage basking in the afterglow of a life well-lived and more like a man who just discovered his stock portfolio is now invested entirely in a defunct dodo farm. What profound contemporary tragedy has curdled the serenity of your golden years? Is it the quality of the harbour coffee, perhaps?

Cephalus: (Gesturing wildly with the crumpled leaflet) Worse than coffee, Socrates. Worse than bad coffee! They have declared war on my dignity, my repose, and, most criminally, my nap schedule! The Alliance du Changement (ADC) — the very government we so recently entrusted with power, the people who promised us paradise, free WiFi, and perhaps a small unicorn — have decided that my official age of blessed, pensioned decrepitude is no longer sixty, but sixty-five! They call it a “gradual, phased implementation” over five years. I call it five extra years of being forced to wear trousers and pretend I understand email attachments.

Socrates: Ah, the Great Pension Pause. They claim it is a matter of justice — specifically, fiscal justice. They say the national treasury is lighter than a politician’s promise in the wind, hollowed out by the previous regime’s “huge, unsustainable expenses” and relentless “financial wastage.”

Cephalus: Wastage! Yes! They funded grand, shiny projects with all the fiscal sobriety of a toddler with a bank vault key. And now, I, who have been a model citizen and only occasionally exceeded the speed limit, must pay for their fiscal carnival! My poor back, which has honourably supported three different Mauritian economic pillars over four decades — from the sweat of the sugar fields to the precision of textiles to the endless paperwork of offshore banking — must now prop up the national debt for five extra years! Tell me, Socrates, is it my fault that the former administration treated the public purse like an ATM with unlimited withdrawals and no need for a receipt?

Socrates: You posit that the virtue of accountability dictates that the financial burden must fall solely upon the profligate. And a compelling point it is. But consider this, old friend: If a ship is demonstrably sinking because the previous captain drilled holes in the hull to install a lavish jacuzzi, must the current passengers refuse to bail water until the former captain has been properly tried and summarily dunked in the ocean? The state, they argue, faces an immediate crisis. The present need, they say, transcends the history of blame. And what, precisely, is their elegant intellectual justification for this agonizing delay?

Cephalus: (He gestures towards the official government communique with disgust) They cite “Demographic Reality,” Socrates. They speak of a “rapidly ageing population” and, with a distinct lack of poetry, a “shrinking base of young taxpayers.” They say people live longer now — a true miracle of science and good island air — and so the system designed for a shorter lifespan is no longer viable.

Socrates: This is where the notion of justice becomes exquisitely murky. We have a conflict between the Justice of the Past (the promised contract at sixty) and the Justice of the Future (the solvency of the state). Is it a greater injustice to the current elderly to delay their benefit by five years, or a greater injustice to the future young to demand that a small, shrinking number of them finance an ever-growing number of pensioners for an ever-increasing duration? Which generation’s survival is paramount?

Cephalus: But the young must also honour the implicit “social contract” with the old! That is the very foundation of civilization, Socrates. We laboured, paid our taxes, and contributed under the promise of retirement at sixty. The trade unions are livid — and rightly so. They call this an act of “betrayal,” forcing those in arduous manual labour — the fishermen, the factory workers, the bus drivers, the labourers — to work five extra years with weary bones. They say the “standard of living” is rising, but for many, that means a higher cost of living, not a greater physical capacity to endure hard labour past sixty! For these labourers, an extra five years is not a philosophical meditation on work; it is a profound physical toll!

Socrates: An excellent point, worthy of a philosopher king’s chief accountant. The contract is indeed two-sided. But if the terms of life itself — longevity, health, and crucially, the birth rate — have changed so dramatically since the contract was drafted, does absolute, rigid adherence to the original terms still qualify as ultimate justice? Or does true justice require a re-negotiation to ensure the contract itself does not become an impossible debt that crushes the very young who are meant to inherit and perpetuate the society? The system of Universality, which grants the BRP to all regardless of contribution, is now colliding with the hard wall of Sustainability.

Cephalus: I fear the young will be crushed regardless, Socrates. The public anger is not just about the principle; it is venomously exacerbated by the perception of “financial wastage” under the past rulers. When citizens see vast sums squandered on dubious projects and hear tales of corruption in the papers, they are monumentally loath to accept personal, painful sacrifice. They see the mass protest in the capital not as an exercise in democracy, but as a necessary expulsion of pent-up economic rage!

Socrates: The method of implementation is also a stain upon their claim to justice. The Opposition Parties call the reform “undemocratic and disproportionate,” pointing to the perceived “lack of public consultation” and the “rushed” manner of its implementation via the Finance Act 2025. They feel silenced and coerced. If the ADC government, despite winning a magnificent supermajority, acts in a way that is perceived as coercive and ignores the collective, established voice of the people, have they secured true authority? Or merely momentary power? Power, Cephalus, is easily acquired by the simple majority of the ballot box. But authority is secured only by persuasion and demonstrable prudence. Did they use persuasion before the act, or merely cite necessity after the fact?

Cephalus: They cited necessity and then offered a small, statistically complex olive branch: the targeted Income Support scheme for the most vulnerable between sixty and the new pension age.

Socrates: Ah, the Mitigation Measure — a political tourniquet. This is a critical detail. What is the true intent of this measure? Is it an act of genuine, philosophical compassion, or merely a cold political calculation designed to prevent a full-blown revolution? If it is truly aimed at the most vulnerable and poor, does that not elevate the reform above mere fiscal prudence to the level of social equity?

Cephalus: Perhaps. But the critics are not appeased! The original BRP, while costly, fostered a profound sense of social solidarity, Socrates. It was a birthright, a foundational assumption of simply being Mauritian. To introduce means-testing feels like a descent into cold, inhuman calculation, treating citizens not as co-owners of the state, but as mere fiscal liabilities to be managed and itemized on a spreadsheet by some humourless bureaucrat. Yet, I grant you, you make a strong, irritatingly logical case for focusing limited resources on the truly needy. It is a terrifying paradox: The just principle of universality appears to be the ultimate engine of injustice for the future. I understand the complexity now, Socrates. Justice in the public sphere is not merely a simple, abstract transaction of debt and due, but a continuous, high-stakes calculation of intergenerational equity, fiscal necessity, and the fragile restoration of public faith.

(Cephalus suddenly brightens, a mischievous, politically charged glint in his eye.)

Cephalus (Cont.): I think we should therefore seriously think of campaigning to retire our politicians at 65 years — in line with what they are themselves proposing to the people! If they decree that sustained, difficult labour for the masses must extend to sixty-five for the good of the nation, then should not the sustained, difficult management of the nation require the same standard? Wouldn’t that, Socrates, amount to true fairness? Or perhaps even poetic justice?

Socrates: (Socrates raises an eyebrow, a slow, knowing smile spreading across his face.)

Socrates: Ah, Cephalus! You move from existential dread to revolutionary proposal with the agility of a young Olympic runner! Your idea is indeed perfectly symmetrical, which appeals deeply to the mathematical purity of Justice. But tell me: If we retire our politicians precisely when they have finally mastered the labyrinthine arts of governance — just as they learn where all the secret offshore accounts and budgetary black holes are hidden — would that not simply be handing the keys of the State over to a fresh crop of expensive, inexperienced enthusiasts? We might achieve fairness, yes, but perhaps at the expense of competence! Is the State better served by an experienced rogue or an idealistic amateur? It is a fascinating new dilemma.

Cephalus: (Sighing, the revolutionary fire dying down a little) An experienced rogue, you say? Perhaps you have a point. The sheer time it takes for a politician to become truly effective at profligacy is in itself a form of arduous labour. Very well, Socrates. I shall not start the “Retire the Rulers” movement today. My back simply isn’t up to composing another protest sign.

Socrates: Go in peace then, my dear friend. And may the gods grant that those who rule — whether young and enthusiastic or old and experienced — possess the unique wisdom to balance the nation’s books without entirely forgetting the human dignity and the well-deserved nap that those very numbers represent.

(Socrates watches Cephalus slowly and deliberately depart, before turning his attention to a small, discarded government financial statement. He shakes his head, not at the numbers, but at the sheer, tragicomic complexity of modern ethics.)

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 26 September 2025