Sir Hilary Blood on Our Constitution

Mauritius Times – 70 Years

By Peter Ibbotson

Mr Iain Macleod has suggested that we should not forget the future constitutional development of Mauritius. In these columns I have more than once pointed out that constitutional development and economic development are not exclusive policies; but that, in fact, economic development depends on constitutional development if we have a political party which wishes to pursue — for the benefit of the country — certain lines of economic development but are inhibited from so doing because the antiquated constitutional situation prevents that party from achieving power.

We have such a position in Mauritius. Under the present constitution, the Executive must represent the various shades of opinion in the Legislative Council. Not yet in Mauritius can the Executive be drawn exclusively from the majority party in the Legislative Council. Not yet, then, can Mauritius be said to have party government but suppose the constitution were amended to provide that the majority party provided all the ministers, with the leader of the majority party styled Prime (or Chief) Minister, what then? What would be the desired constitutional status of Mauritius within the British Commonwealth? I add these last four words, because no one in his right senses would wish Mauritius to leave the British Commonwealth.

As early as July 1960, the Mauritius Times, through Peter Ibbotson’s advocacy, highlighted the potential for textile manufacturing in Mauritius, citing low wage rates as a competitive advantage. This vision materialized in the 1970s and 1980s, a point underscored by Ibbotson’s 1960 statement: “I cannot understand why some enterprising businessmen do not start the manufacture of textiles in Mauritius, taking advantage (as Professor Meade said) of low wage rates to compete on the world market. Hong Kong has to import raw cotton to manufacture cotton goods; Mauritius could well do the same…”

Sir Hilary Blood has been examining, in the current number of The Times British Colonies Review, the constitutional future of Britain’s smaller territories. He says it is unwise to name these smaller territories, but he makes it clear that he includes Mauritius and Seychelles among them. He sees five limitations standing between the smaller territories and full sovereignty: location and size; poverty; lack of education and training; mixed societies; and strategic considerations. These five factors would seem to prevent the emergence of Mauritius as a fully sovereign viable state. What then is the alternative to dependence forever?

“One new concept which is being developed for the first time is that of an internally self-governing state like Singapore,” says Sir Hilary. Internal self-government is, in Sir Hilary’s evident considered opinion, “the logical development, short of sovereignty, of representative government.”

He continues, “A constitution on Singapore lines may well be the solution for such places as Seychelles, Mauritius, British Honduras, the Bahamas, and other similar territories.” (The Labour Party was asking for such a constitution seven years ago.)

To answer objections that internal self-government is not full of sovereignty, Sir Hilary suggests three possible ways in which internal self-government may be made more acceptable; may be made into “internal self-government-plus”, in fact. He suggests that the prime ministers of these smaller dependencies may be associated on relatively equal terms with Her Majesty’s Ministers in the UK and elsewhere, by a form of regionalisation which would associate lesser dependencies with nearby sovereign states (e.g., though Sir Hilary does not give this example, Mauritius and Australia). A second approach, which is described as “of a more fundamental nature”, is to give territory the unequivocal choice of internal self-government within the Commonwealth or independence outside the Commonwealth. The territory’s choice, once taken, would be forever irrevocable.

The third approach is of special interest to Mauritius. It is that attention should be paid to “functional development” of colonial territories. By this, Sir Hilary means that particular colonies have particular roles which they can play within the commonwealth structure as a whole; and we should go about stressing this concept of functional development. Hong Kong is a small island colony where the primary preoccupation is with commerce and trade, says Sir Hilary. He thinks it might still be possible to work out for other colonies “a functional objective”; political development would then be subordinate to that objective. “Will the knowledge that a particular place has a particular function in the general overall progress of the Commonwealth provide the necessary outlet for natural pride and obviate the feeling of frustration which arises in certain places where some of the limitations” of incapability of achieving sovereignty bear heavily? asks Sir Hilary.

Mauritius clearly has a special place in the overall framework of the Commonwealth — a provider of sugar. But if Mauritius is to accept internal self-government with her place as a provider of sugar guaranteed and accepted by the rest of the Commonwealth, then we are entitled to ask that the rest of the Commonwealth be more generous to Mauritius in return. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement (CSA) by Itself is not enough; we already have that, whether Mauritius stays dependent, achieves internal self-government or becomes a dominion as the Labour Party’s colonial policy adumbrates. We want more than the CSA if internal self-government plus recognition of Mauritius as a gigantic cane field is to be the limit of constitutional development for the Star and Key of the Indian Ocean.

The benefits of sugar growing in Mauritius would be shared by the Commonwealth as a whole under the Blood scheme; we would expect the burdens of social and economic life in Mauritius also to be shared among the commonwealth as a whole. We would expect too that British policy in the economic development of lesser dependencies would be different from at present. We hope that the allocation of Commonwealth Development and Welfare Funds (CD & W Funds) will not be geared to the ability to utilise them immediately, but to necessity in both short run and long. We would expect that CD & W Funds would be more generous than in the past and at present. We would hope that recognition of Mauritius as a gigantic cane field producing tons and tons of cheap sugar would not prevent H.M. Government from financing or helping to finance the industrialisation of the economy.

Recently in the Legislative Council, Mr Ramlallah criticised the huge annual imports of footwear, shirts, and underwear. He related an anecdote which happened during his visit to the UK last year: the manager of a garment factory was astonished by the import of textiles and asked Mr Ramlallah: “Can’t you make them there?” Professor Meade made this same point in his speech to teachers at Rose Hill; and a recent occurrence in another colony has brought it back to my mind. Malta, like Mauritius, is a tight little island; its area is limited, and its population is ever-growing (nearly all Maltese are Roman Catholics). But it has been announced that a bacon-curing company has been formed to undertake the curing of bacon for domestic consumption and export sales. The factory is to start later this year and will cure 150 pigs a week during its first year of operation (domestic sales only), rising to 300 a week in the second year when export sales will be developed. This type of enterprise is the type which Mauritius needs; but it is not the enterprise which I had in mind a sentence or two ago, even though it will give farmers the chance of increasing pig output by 50 per cent and give employment to about 100 people.

No, the enterprise which I had in mind is one connected with textiles. I cannot understand why some enterprising businessmen do not start the manufacture of textiles in Mauritius, taking advantage (as Professor Meade said) of low wage rates to compete on the world market. Hong Kong has to import raw cotton to manufacture cotton goods; Mauritius could well do the same. It is the Chinese in Hong Kong who have built up the textile industry: are there no enterprising Sino-Mauritians who have at heart the welfare of their country and not the welfare of Chiang-Kai Shek?

In Malta, it is reported, that the Lancashire firm of Rigg Brothers are transferring the entire productive machinery from one of their mills and a large part of the machinery from another mill to Malta and will continue the production of cotton materials in the Maltese Islands. Many people will be able to get jobs in the mills; local production of raw cotton may be stimulated. The FAO’s leading cotton expert Is to go to Malta to advise on the matter.

This is one sort of enterprise which should be attracted to Mauritius. An oil refinery is not outside the bounds of possibility; and flour mills, the cement factory, textile factories, a local leather factory — all these are desirable and possible lines of industrial development, and they are lines which should be asked for (if they have not already been developed beforehand) as part of the price of surrender of claims for constitutional development beyond internal self-government, should the Blood proposals ever become H.M. Government’s policy. (A furniture factory has just been opened in Barbados; it employs 80 people. When the manufacture of prefabricated houses begins, the number employed will increase to 500).

Development of such factories would reduce Mauritian dependence on imports and thus save foreign currency. Fiscal measures could help the infant industries; protection subsidies could be introduced. It is morally better for the Government to subsidise an industry which is providing employment than for it to pay unemployment benefit or public assistance to those workers who would otherwise be unemployed.

7th Year – No 305
Friday 1st July 1960

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 16 May 2025