“People want Justice. Justice in every aspect of a human being’s life…

…that was precisely what the Labour of 1936 was about”

Interview: Nita Deerpalsing

* ‘Until non-toxic leadership becomes viral, we will fall short on the ambition of living in a strong, prosperous nation’

* ‘The power of money is stronger than the power of the people today!’
In case anyone has still not understood what we are talking about here, let me spell it out: corruption and the capture of the state with the good old power of money.

This week, the Mauritius Labour Party marks its 90th anniversary — a moment that invites reflection not just on the party’s history, but on the ideals that gave birth to modern Mauritius. From the early struggles against colonial oppression, led by figures such as Emmanuel Anquetil and Guy Rozemont, to the fight for workers’ rights and independence, the MLP’s roots are deeply entwined with the nation’s own journey toward justice and dignity. Today, as the party navigates a complex political and economic landscape, the question remains: does it still embody the courage, conviction, and commitment to the collective good that inspired its founders? Nita Deerpalsing sheds light on this and more. Read on:

Mauritius Times: As the Mauritius Labour Party marks its 90th anniversary this week, it offers a timely opportunity to reflect on its trajectory. Founded on the bedrock of workers’ rights and democratic socialism, how does the party measure up to those ideals today?

Indeed the 90th anniversary of the MLP is a significant milestone not only for the party itself but even more so for the country. Because let us not forget that the fight against oppression — led by Anquetil, Rozemont, etc., — leading up to 1936 when the party was founded is the very root of the tree that Mauritius is today.

There is no doubt that the courage of conviction in the face of powerful oppressors should still remain an immense source of inspiration and a solid compass for action for anyone in politics today for the right reasons.

You will note that although Dr Maurice Cure was one of the founding members of the MLP in 1936, I chose to put the spotlight more on Messrs Emmanuel Anquetil and Guy Rozemont. This is because historical documents clearly show that Dr Cure was not that consistent in his convictions. Before founding the MLP, he was part of a movement to ask for retrocession of Mauritius to… the French! After having been with the MLP for a while, he eventually reneged the convictions he had when he founded the party to end up forming a group to stand against the Independence movement.

Anyone who wishes to learn more about this period of our History can tune in to the YouTube channel “dearMoris” (https://www.youtube.com/@dearMoris) where I have uploaded a series of podcasts with Mr Bashir Khan. Mr Khan is a Mauritian living in London and has spent over 40 years collecting over 44,000 pages of documents from British archives.

Mr Khan’s collection is impressive as it covers so many details of British Intelligence documents of the time detailing the actions of people like Rozemont, Anquetil and others. These documents also contain minutes of meetings regarding the whole Diego/Chagos issue. It is a treasure trove of information, and I am very happy that Mr Khan agreed to eagerly collaborate on this project to make our History accessible to each citizen of this country through Kreol.

* The struggle which started in 1936 was about workers’ rights, the fight against the plantocracy, and the march toward independence. It provides the party with moral authority — the idea that “we were there at the beginning.” That legacy has served the party well, but as the political landscape shifts, we must ask: does it still resonate with today’s voters and the generations to come?

In my opinion – and this is really sad to say – the party today is very quickly becoming a mere copy of the MSM. Where people join, not on the basis of unwavering principles and foundational ideas about progressive politics but to make a “career” in politics. If not that, then to have the opportunity to significantly multiply their net financial worth between the time they join the party and the time they leave.

Of course there are many doctors, lawyers and other accomplished professionals who will tell you they make more money outside than being an MP or a minister — which is more or less true for the accomplished ones. However, they are also vulnerable to another form of “gain”: that of an inflated ego, a sense of status, a sense of being important, with media running after them and giving them a public existence.

In my view, these are all the wrong reasons for entering politics, whichever the case may be.

I believe we should draw inspiration from Guy Rozemont, who was, in my eyes, a true firebrand of conviction for genuine individual and societal emancipation.

* What did Guy Rozemont stand up against?

Let us remember that, at the time, he faced both political power in the British Colonial Office and economic power in the sugar plantocracy. Guy Rozemont — armed with nothing but his convictions — stood bravely against an abuse of power from both sides, which had subjected citizens to a multitude of injustices

There was the political injustice of citizens not having the franchise to vote. He voiced out and acted against that injustice. There was the political injustice of the then British Governor nominating whoever he wanted (mostly the elites from the sugar plantocracy) in the Legislative Council which practically resulted in nullifying the votes of the people. Concretely that meant that any motion that Guy Rozemont or his peers would bring to the Legislative Council to demand for better working conditions for labourers and workers were easily squashed precisely because the British Governor’s nominations had outnumbered those who were actually voted in by the people!

Can you imagine Rozemont bringing a motion for better working conditions, only to face a Legislative Council where the majority were the sugar bosses themselves — seated there by nomination, not by vote? Would they ever agree to such an emancipatory motion? Were the votes in that Assembly reflecting the power of the people, or the power of money?

To those currently hailing from the Labour Party who use the excuse that ‘only fools never change their minds’ to justify their shifts, I ask them to engage their grey matter. Look at our parliament today: Does it reflect the power of the people, or has it once again succumbed to the power of the purse?

Can you answer this affirmatively when you see how the pension measure was forced down the throat of the people without a single consultation with the people? Without even those taking the decision having even the decency to lead by example?

Can you answer this affirmatively when you see MPs, Junior Ministers, Ministers parading their presence in the rebranding exercises of those at the top economic echelon of this country? Are they proxies for marketing companies? Do they get paid to provide free publicity to some economic players?

Do you find this kind of bizarre occurrence in countries at the top of the list of least corrupt countries? Like the Scandinavian countries? Or the country we like to refer to – Singapore? Here ministers and junior ministers even go and plant tea trees for an exclusive club of the private sector. Worse yet: they go and give their blessings to mergers of the top companies! I mean this is absolutely surreal. The more so for a team which promised so-called “rupture”.

Can you answer the above question (is the power of the people greater than the power of money) affirmatively when you see the Competition commission giving their blessings to an increased concentration in the insurance sector?

Can you answer this million-dollar question affirmatively when you see Independent Power Producers still marching happily to the banks on the back of every single citizen of this country?

It is difficult to answer this affirmatively when political campaigns — and indeed entire mandates — are so heavily influenced by financial interests. Historically, this influence came from those at the top of the economic ladder. Today, however, a new concern arises: the lack of transparency regarding the origins of political funding, leaving us to wonder if these resources might also be linked to illicit activities.

So, I am very sorry for the imbeciles who are too comfortably busy enjoying the spoils of power not to notice that even today the evidence is incontestable: the power of money is stronger than the power of the people! Allow me to repeat this in our Kreol Morisien for emphasis for the benefits of the imbeciles: ‘puvwar larzan buku pli for ki puvwar lepep’.

In fact, it is even much more insidious, clever and cancerous than it was in Rozemont’s time. And in case anyone has still not understood what we are talking about here, let me spell it out: corruption and the capture of the state with the good old power of money.

And let me underline that this did not start yesterday, certainly not in November 2024, not even in 2014 when the worse MSM led government ever came to power. The 10 years between 2014 and 2024 were an intoxicating, vertiginous acceleration of the power of money. Getting even into the terrain of mafiosi-like things such as what we saw with reward money or even the assassination of Mr Kistnen disguised into a suicide. That should give all of us shivers for what we escaped from in November 2024.

* Don’t you think the party has had to adapt its ideological foundations to suit political realities and coalition dynamics — and eventually evolved into a modern social-democratic movement with a distinct identity alongside its partners?

Let me be clear. I am not interested in ideology. Because ideology can enslave your mind. In order for my mind to remain free and agile, it is important to even discard the word “ideology”. What I am more interested in is fundamental principles and pragmatism.

So, when I hear this argument from today’s spokespersons of today’s MLP – that of “adapting to current realities”, I say to myself that obviously they haven’t given enough thought to the emancipatory movement led by Anquetil, Rozemont, Pandit Sahadeo and SSR.

My question is what are you adapting to? The power of money to corrupt, to abuse, to capture the State? Really? That is now the new Labour branding?

The other astonishing argument that we often hear is: oh we can’t do without those who have the Capital to invest. And on that one I so totally emphatically agree. I am absolutely for a market economy where — like countries with high level of well-being – the people’s capital is not used to subsidize private ventures which then capture all the profits!

That is the challenge of today! Are we going to continue the massive subsidies that the people provide as capital to private ventures such as in the case of the IPPs? Lest they do not know, they should do some homework and realize that in the case of IPPs it is the people of Mauritius who provided the capital, took on their back all the risks. Only for the IPPs to walk away with billions of hand outs from … the people!! So pray do tell, what capital that we can’t do without are we talking about?

Do you find these kinds of “frameworks” in our oft-quoted Singapore for example? Do you find competition commissions siphoning funds from public funds (in terms of lavish salaries, etc.,) only to increase the level of cartelisation? I mean, for goodness sake, I would say to those people get a reality check on what a rent-seeking model of development is before you start speaking of “we can’t do without capital”.

* The Labour Party has made an impressive comeback to power after a decade in the political wilderness. However, this new success comes with difficult challenges. The party has maintained its commitment to the welfare state, but the current challenge is balancing its socialist roots with fiscal reality. That’s a tough one, as the reform of the pensions system has shown. What’s your take on that?

As I mentioned before, I am less interested in “socialism”; I am more interested in real functioning market economics. Where it is not the people who provide capital and take the risks for private ventures to pocket the profits.

And let me please emphasize that I am not talking about the historical landowners only. Today we have a new emerging rent-seeking bourgeois class. And rent-seeking has not all of a sudden become angelic and noble because the colour of the skin of the rent-seekers has become more brown, or more of this or that ethnic community! Take the example of those who obtain by-catch fish contracts regime after regime. You think that is not rent-seeking? That is not something which ultimately erodes something from a Public Goods perspective? We also saw how private clinics of some politically connected people mushroomed under the previous regime.

Unfortunately, all of these examples provide evidence that instead of moving towards a true market economy where there is competition, true market forces, true private enterprises, over the last 30 years or so, we have only democratized the rent-seeking class. Those who feed off of the State’s subsidies, those who feed off of preferential development permits granted by the political power of the day. While Public Goods are eroded, regime after regime.

In her insightful book about how concentrated disproportionate wealth erodes democracy, Amy Chua was talking about ‘market-dominant minorities’ in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Unfortunately for us, we must now speak of “market-dominant multiplicities”; all of which have nothing to do with a truly competitive market economy which delivers both on economic prosperity and democracy.

Ironically, the widespread narrative carefully crafted to manufacture consent is that we have too much “handouts” for the poor and the vulnerable. When in actual fact, the people of this country give real handouts by the billions to the ultra rich! And may I add that I find it absolutely shocking that office bearers of the MLP today are ignorant of the fact.

It would be interesting for a student at the university to research just how much since independence the people of this country have given handouts to the top economic echelon. Or maybe an MP could have demanded a quantification of this amount if we had things like parliamentary committees on economic policy. In the meantime, we will only be fed a narrative that continues to entrench a dominant narrative in which handouts by the people of this country to the richest of richest, simply does not exist, has never existed!

* Moving forward, do you think the party’s current social model sustainable, or is a fundamental shift in its economic approach inevitable?

Before we move on from what we consider a sustainable model in the dominant narrative, let me share here, an opinion which Sameer Sharma posted a couple of days ago on someone’s Facebook post. I share it here because it is so clearly articulated and it comes from a respected professional without any political leaning.

Let me quote and paraphrase a bit: you have people who own large land banks. You don’t have land value taxation. You don’t have fiscal policy which pushes in a direction that is for collective good. So, what happens is that the large landowners have figured out that they can convert to residential and commercial (with the support of eager and vision-less policy makers I may add); and the value of that land multiplies overnight on paper. They then go to the bank and say here’s my collateral, give me a loan. Then they build luxury villas which they sell and make a killing. It’s a very easy and stupid model, why would they change that? And the money they make out of these deals, they try to make sure they keep as much of it as possible abroad.

Now if I consider these words from Sameer Sharma, I would say yes of course why would they change that? But the next question is: what needs to be done in order to ensure this does not to change? Get the most servile politicians that money can buy. But who sell themselves as “rupture” makers. And the better if you get the variety which recently paraded on interviews for MLP’s 90th anniversary and can mindlessly repeat the narrative: we would all be dead without *this* model of development. Those kinds of politicians are a real treasure. The more mindless they are, the better.

Sorry you were talking about a “sustainable model”? There you go. That has been the most sustainable model for some 30 years or so!

* Let’s move on to the challenge of internal renewal. Developing a new generation of leaders to carry the party forward is its most pressing internal challenge. As voters move away from traditional party loyalty, how can the Labour Party renew its leadership? Has the focus on senior figures made it harder to develop the ‘next-generation’ talent needed to reach younger voters?

The question is: who are the names we are going to remember after Anquetil, Rozemont, Seeneevassen, SSR, etc.? Who will be the stalwarts we will remember not for having held a seat of power for some time but for having had the guts, the determination, the decisiveness to wrestle with the power of money which erodes Public Goods?

I don’t think that the fundamental aspiration of human beings worldwide is a function of age. People want Justice. Period. And by Justice I don’t mean exclusively the Justice system in the sense of the Judiciary. Although even there we see how those with money and /or connections (whether political or fraternal) are able to differentially treated.

I mean Justice in every aspect of a human being’s life. That was precisely what the Labour of 1936 was about.

* We have a lot about Gen Z these days — a generation that tends to prioritize individual causes and their own careers over collective political action. How does a legacy ‘mass movement’ party evolve to attract a generation focused on climate change, personal entrepreneurship and social justice?

I am afraid I do not subscribe to this generalization that fundamental human beings’ aspirations can be categorized according to age groups. There are a couple of underlying conditions that any human being craves for: Dignity and Justice.

We see how the world over we have youths everywhere engaged in environmental justice. That is in an example of engagement for a collective good. So I believe we should refrain from reading more than we should when we see how some young people today – across the world – are allergic to politicians of the day. They are not disengaging from collective action because they do not believe in collective goods. It is more a mix of disgust, of resignation in face of the power of money, a discouragement that those profiting from exploiting the planet are so powerful that they wield all sorts of power to block justice in all kinds of ways.

* Given the rapid pace of change globally in politics, economy, and technology, what would you say are the core challenges and opportunities for centre-left parties like the MLP in the 21st century?

I want systemic change which results in justice being done, being seen, being felt and being lived. I don’t care what you call that system: left, centre, right. The appellation is not important. Evidence about what works is important.

For example, we know that countries where people have a very decent life are countries which have curbed corruption to the minimum. We know countries which are most prosperous and also enjoy individual and societal well-being, are countries where competition truly flourishes. Here if we continue on this track, we will be living in an increasingly cartelised society. In more ways than one.

And like this there are so many best practices across the world from which we can inspire and build a future proof Mauritius.

But in my view, to do that we need a few basic ingredients:

(1) A strong sense of national unity stemming from the equal applicability of the law. Where every single citizen feels an equal belonging to the collective public goods. Because you simply can’t have collective enthusiasm for progress if your citizens self-categorize themselves from a young age. To do that we have to eliminate all kinds of instances where institutions deliver public (but also private) services according to the citizen’s look or social status. But also worth noting is that you will never have any truly effective nation building (and collective enthusiasm for progress) if you end up with two categories of citizenry: those who have been to public schools and those who have been to private schools. That situation is extremely erosive and dangerous for us as a nation.

(2) A nation of healthy people. This involves what kind of nutritious, nontoxic food is available for the common citizen. Because it is sheer delusion to think that in 2050 you can have economic prosperity with widespread sickness in the population. A recent study published by the British Medical Journal re-emphasizes the link between nutrition and mental health/behaviour. When we see all those examples of non-balanced behaviour in schools, on the roads, in buses, at the workplace (and even in parliament for goodness sake!) it should give us serious pause to consider our policy (if we have one) about “alimentation”.

(3) An enthusiastic nation. This one rests naturally upon the above two but goes much beyond these. Because you can’t produce anything great if the people in the country are not energized, do not have a hunger for making individual and collective progress and are satisfied with just the minimum.

This is the challenge we have in front of us. It’s a daunting task and the journey can only start if we have one thing: non-toxic leadership-by-example at all levels. Until non-toxic leadership becomes viral, we will fall short on the ambition of living in a strong, prosperous nation where all concepts of justice is embedded in every single citizen, in every single institution of this country.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 27 February 2026