The Government of l’Alliance du Changement – One Year Later

Opinion

Governing After the Landslide: The Weight of Expectations

By Sada Reddi

One year after the landslide victory of the new government in November 2024, the governing alliance is facing growing unpopularity. This is hardly unusual: since 1967, every government has encountered similar difficulties within its first year in office. Some pundits may nostalgically invoke the supposed halcyon days of past administrations during their initial months, but these largely never existed.

Suffice it to recall that the first austerity budget of 1968 proved a major disappointment to the electorate. Although it made initial reference to the establishment of an Export Processing Zone (EPZ), the EPZ Act was only passed in 1970, and industrialisation truly took off only in the mid-1970s. Likewise, following the historic 60-0 victory of 1982, the population had to contend with the continuation of austerity measures, the abolition of subsidies on basic foodstuffs, the closure of private colleges, and the introduction of sales tax.

The present government is facing a similar situation in the wake of the near-bankruptcy inherited from the previous regime and a challenging economic environment, with Moody’s hanging like a sword of Damocles over the economy. Even those who argue that Moody’s is being instrumentalised to justify harsh economic measures concede that its rating cannot simply be ignored. It is also a well-established political strategy for governments to introduce unpopular measures early in their term, before later implementing corrective policies aimed at winning back the electorate by the mid-term.

A Breath of Fresh Air

Whatever the criticisms levelled against the government, no one can deny that under the new regime the atmosphere has markedly eased, allowing people to breathe more freely. The dismantling of repressive structures such as the Police Headquarters Special Striking Team and its close collaborators, along with the removal of officers who had not only curtailed civil liberties but also allegedly misappropriated public funds, has come as a profound relief to the population.

Steps have also been taken to restore the independence of key institutions, notably the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. On the diplomatic front, relations with SADC and the African Union have been consolidated. The Prime Minister’s recent visit to India has yielded tangible outcomes in terms of financial assistance for several development projects, and the government remains engaged in ongoing negotiations over Diego Garcia.

Despite efforts to stabilise the rupee and contain the rising national debt, government action in other areas — whether justifiable or not — has done little to alleviate the hardships faced by significant segments of the population, who continue to bear the full weight of a high cost of living and declining living standards. Admittedly, genuine efforts are being made to bring down the prices of certain basic commodities.

What appears particularly outrageous to the electorate, however, is the pension reform introduced by a party that has historically been closely associated with the welfare state throughout its existence.

Pension reform came as both unexpected and shocking to many would-be pensioners and ignited significant opposition from various quarters. Yet, viewed from another angle, it was a bold attempt to reform a pension system whose sustainability had become a pressing necessity. The reform was introduced in a staggered manner, aimed at attenuating its most harmful effects.

Even the most vocal opponents of pension reform have been unable to propose a viable alternative, beyond suggesting marginal cuts here and there, without explaining how the pension fund could bridge an estimated shortfall of around Rs 25 billion in the current economic context. Meanwhile, the recent salary compensation and the recommendations of the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) can only exacerbate pressures on both civil servants and public finances, even though the PRB recommendations will not be applied retroactively.

Frustration is therefore likely to deepen among an electorate that, for nearly half a century, has been taught and conditioned to focus narrowly on monetary gains, without corresponding emphasis on hard work, productivity, and discipline.

The Meritocracy Gap

That said, the government bears a substantial share of responsibility. This has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister himself, who, in an interview on Radio Plus, conceded that there had been a number of false starts and missteps. Some recent nominations — particularly the reappointment of individuals drawn out of retirement — appear clumsy, if not faintly laughable.

These appointments are often justified by the claim that there is a dearth of professionals willing to offer their services, much as employers routinely argue that they cannot recruit Mauritians for many available jobs. The more plausible explanation, however, is that politicians operate within a very limited circle of friends and acquaintances, and tend to make appointments from this narrow pool, regardless of whether those selected are best suited to deliver.

This supposed “dearth” of professionals is, in reality, a self-fulfilling prophecy: if one does not look, or fails to answer the door when expertise knocks, one will never find the right people. There are numerous Mauritian professionals with deep international experience whose willingness to serve is met with a wall of silence — clear evidence that the talent exists and is simply being ignored.

The government should urgently establish a transparent “Talent Register” or an open-door portal to actively recruit experienced experts and young professionals alike, instead of relying on the same tired circles. If it truly wants the best, it must stop waiting for the “right people” to somehow appear and start actively inviting them in.

At the same time, the government has yet to open a formal register allowing young professionals to offer their services, even though Rezistans ek Alternativ took the laudable initiative of inviting applications for posts under the aegis of the Ministry of Social Security. The overreliance on retired personnel has produced a predictable outcome: experience — however valuable it may once have been, and however useful for mentoring younger professionals — has become insufficient on its own to deal with a society now confronted with far greater complexity. This approach ultimately deprives the country of the energy, dynamism, and innovative spirit needed to drive meaningful economic and social change.

The Implementation Bottleneck

Responsibility for the government’s poor performance to date must also be shared by the bureaucracy. Since the advent of the new administration, conferences, as well as the launching of blueprints and roadmaps, have rarely been translated into concrete action — perhaps with the partial exception of the Ministry of Health. The websites of several ministries are replete with reports that have never been implemented; their recommendations are repeatedly reworded, relaunched, and reannounced, while implementation remains slow and hesitant. In one parastatal body, no Chief Executive Officer has been appointed since 2015.

Capacity-building has been largely absent in many government departments and parastatals over the past decade, further undermining delivery. This is compounded by the fact that ministers often spend excessive time abroad attending conferences which, in many cases, yield little tangible benefit. While it is understandable that a small, independent country — active in numerous international organisations — receives frequent invitations to annual meetings, the current economic context requires far greater selectivity. Although the overall number of overseas missions has been curtailed, the number of ministers and junior ministers travelling remains excessive, particularly as many such missions have proven unproductive, as reflected in their reports to Cabinet.

One does not expect a new pillar of the economy to emerge within a single year. Historically, since the 1970s, each additional economic pillar has taken roughly a decade to materialise. Yet the Blue Economy, officially launched in 2012, has still failed to develop as anticipated. Institutional inertia may well be at the root of this failure.

One recalls that in 2012 the Mauritius Research Council was tasked with organising a conference on the Blue Economy, with the aim of tapping into available expertise and producing a report to guide both government and the private sector. The conference duly took place, yet the report was never released. Similarly, a request to set up an interdisciplinary team to study a village with an unusually high incidence of cancer among women also came to nothing.

While the electorate’s frustration is entirely legitimate, the government must now set clear priorities and move decisively into action if it hopes to shift the economy from a growth rate of 3.2% to 5%. Artificial intelligence has been earmarked as a future pillar of growth, but, as has been noted elsewhere, without the necessary infrastructure and a resolution of the energy question, progress will remain limited.

The country faces challenges on multiple fronts. Meeting them will require sustained effort from the government, the private sector, and the population at large. In the past, Mauritius has risen to most of its challenges, and there is no compelling reason why it should not do so again in the years ahead.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 24 December 2025