“What we need to change in this country is the current politics of spectacle to a politics of purpose”

Interview: Nita Deerpalsing

‘The problem is that we are stuck in transactional leadership’

* Electoral Reform: “I am totally against moving from a rules-based system to a discretionary-based system”
‘This is extremely dangerous and could even be downright nefarious’

* ‘As long as we continue to ever extend and entrench a rent-seeking model, there will be no ‘rupture’ from the status quo’

* ‘ With a majority of MPs serving in the Executive (35 out of 60), the functioning of our Westminster-based democracy is being mocked and distorted’

In a political landscape increasingly dominated by optics, slogans, and performative outrage, Nita Deerpalsing argues that Mauritius has lost sight of what truly matters: purpose, substance, and institutional integrity. In this wide-ranging interview, she delivers a sharp critique of what she describes as a “politics of spectacle”—a system driven by transactional leadership, rent-seeking behaviour, and the steady erosion of democratic checks and balances. From electoral reform to the over-concentration of power in the Executive, Nita Deerpalsing warns against dangerous shifts away from rules-based governance towards discretionary decision-making. Candid, uncompromising, and intellectually rigorous, her reflections challenge comfortable assumptions about reform, rupture, and the real cost of maintaining the status quo.

Mauritius Times: Most citizens would report a sense of liberation from the restrictive and heavily policed atmosphere that characterized the previous decade — a shift they largely credit to the Alliance du Changement’s new political culture since it assumed power in November 2024.. Beyond this change in climate, what other areas do you believe should have seen more tangible improvement?

First, let me reiterate that there is no doubt that the population was absolutely right in voting the previous government out. The more so when we have now seen things such as the “reward money” saga, the extra loans in the billions given to a family hotel which was already incapable of paying those loans and so much more.

In my view, the ‘liberation’ you are referring to, is limited. Indeed, this sense of liberation was there at the announcement of the election results. In the meantime, we have seen the arrest of MrJasodanand and the treatment meted out to him compared to other similar cases. No inspiration to sing liberation songs there.

Now let’s consider what liberation is, in its fullest sense. Viktor Frankl in “Man’s Search for Meaning” shared a vital insight: that freedom is not the absence of constraint but the presence of meaning. It is about how free/empowered citizens really are, to realize the potential that lies within them.

At the end of the day, human dignity is about having purpose and meaning to one’s life. Can we say that the signals we have seen over the last 12 months give us reason to be confident that we are creating conditions for each citizen to live in a full sense of well-being?

I suggest that it is within this broader framework that we should measure ‘liberation’. In 2029, that is the very lens through which we will gauge the success of this regime.

* On a more practical note, how would you evaluate the government’s progress in high-priority areas — specifically law and order and the fight against drug trafficking? What key factors or indicators inform your assessment?

Let us consider what are the quintessential ingredients in order to create the conditions for pervasive sense of ‘bien-être’ (well-being) both at the individual as well as the collective level. Those are: a fully rules-based and rights-based State architecture.

That means State institutions “ki pa gett figir”, that is, where there isn’t even one ounce of discrimination towards any citizen; and that a citizen does not need to behave in a spineless manner in order to obtain what is his/her fundamental rights or in order to apply for any opportunity.

In a plural society, genuine nation building, a shared sense of public goods, a shared sense of “lakorite” will only become reality when the State architecture is wilfully engineered to run strictly on “rules-based” and rights-based” fuel.

Until then, we will continue to see the symptoms of fragile or failed institutions: ‘repli identitaire’, tribalism, communalism. These are mere symptoms which emerge when institutions fail to respond as expected, when people feel excluded, when the system stops rewarding merit.

Taken further, when we have what Daron Acemoglu, (Economics Nobel Prize) termed as “extractive institutions” instead of “inclusive institutions”, which also inevitably leads to widespread breakdown of law and order. In our context, this would include drug proliferation which continues unabated because the proceeds are also used to finance electoral as well as mandate-wide expenses ….

* Beyond the initial rhetoric, do you believe the government has demonstrated a genuine commitment to uprooting corruption — particularly in cases involving high-ranking officials or politically connected entities? Furthermore, how effectively has it addressed public concerns regarding high-profile instances of mismanagement and institutional malpractice?

Well unfortunately the signals do not give us any reason to celebrate. When you see that in the by-catch contract, the only thing that has changed is the colour of the “marsan poisson” who can sense that there is firm resolve to fight corruption, passe-droits, etc?

There are at least two obvious things which are very conducive to corruption practices: (1) lots of ‘pouvoir discrétionnaire’ in the hands of one or very few decision makers in position of power, and (2) lack of transparency.

Now tell me, do we need to wait for a go-ahead certificate from Moody’s to bring the changes needed with respect to these two aspects? How long does it take to bring a Freedom of Information Act? How long does it need to take to minimize as much as possible all ‘pouvoir discrétionnaire’?

Have we seen anything yet even in the form of pious intentions about curbing toxic lobbies, policy capture and clientelism? Let us not fool ourselves: all of this is more often than not, fuelled by bribery. These practices distort the national ecosystem and destroy public trust.

I see we are now talking of Vision 2050. Pray do tell: in 2050, will by-catch contracts still be awarded in the same manner that it has been so far?

* Do you nevertheless believe that meaningful progress has been made in strengthening accountability and integrity in public life, and in ensuring that the Financial Crimes Commission is genuinely independent, adequately resourced, and fully capable of carrying out its mandate?

The fact that one year later we are still wondering when there will be a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is in itself, an answer. And let us keep in mind that we don’t need a FOI act just to tick the box. We need real transparency not only in the form of a FOI Act but also in every single procurement exercise.

Do you know that African countries such as Rwanda are leading the way in making public procurement fully transparent with the use of blockchain technology? What are we waiting for to start copying these best practices?

* With public finances in the red—a legacy of previous policies—the need for wealth generation to boost disposable income is urgent. Is the current economic model diversified and future-proofed for sustainable growth, or does a risky reliance on traditional sectors persist? Ultimately, how must the Alliance du Changement transform this model to honour its pledge of ‘rupture’?

Unfortunately, the rent-seeking culture which erstwhile was ‘limited’ to the economic elite, has now metastasized at all levels. From the ones bending rules to build luxury clinics under the previous regime to the continued practice of allocating by-catch contracts on the basis of ‘pouvoir discrétionnaire’.

Have we seen any serious plan to re-industrialization? Are we going to continue to import everything without taking advantage of the fantastic tool that the AfCFTA (African Continental Free Trade Area), provides us? What do we produce in order to significantly boost our export capacity?

What hope is there still for any “rupture” when you see members of the Executive parading from cocktail to cocktail hosted by the very people who have benefited from huge subsidies from the public coffers for decades? Is it the role of a PM to be seen at rebranding exercises celebrating the consolidation of economic concentration? What signal does that give to the Competition Commission?

By the way, speaking of Competition Commission, can you tell me if it still exists, is operational or are we paying “extractive” salaries from public funds just by way of political reward for yet another political nominee without an appointments committee? Yet another form of rent-seeking…

Can you tell me whether there is any signal out there for IPPs to stop the decades-long practice of abusive profits with returns of 35% without taking a commensurate level of risks? Where are the inclusive institutions which will prevent such “extractive” practices? Any even faint sign of them on the horizon?

As long as we continue to ever extend and entrench a rent-seeking model, there will be no ‘rupture’ from the status quo. Taken against this context, this whole Vision 2050 will unfortunately remain limited to a box-ticking spectacle ‘pour la galerie’.

And the evidence that this Vision 2050 is devoid of any depth, is in our fatal insistence to be “le petit village gaulois” which will go beyond reason, to remain heavily dependent on French language. Don’t get me wrong. I believe in multilingualism. But remaining stuck on the predominance of French language is a huge policy mistake which will cost us in terms our ability to draw from the economic potential of the future.

Do you know that in most foresight studies for 2050 and beyond, everyone is talking about the rise of the Anglosphere? From the US to UK to Nigeria, to India, to Singapore, to Australia. All these foresight studies show that the Anglosphere will represent more than 50% of global GDP in 2050. With the Francosphere ever shrinking ‘comme une peau de chagrin’.

And what are we doing in our great Vision 2050 country? We are introducing French as a medium of instruction in our schools! Can you imagine? Instead of dramatically revving up our capacity in English, instead of the MBC aggressively promoting English, we are stuck in a French language based ‘reverie’!

Besides the Anglosphere holding more than 50% of GDP in 2050 – and possibly linked – is the fact that all Artificial Intelligence (AI) content is predominantly in English. If we think we are going to leverage AI as a tool for economic advancement in 2050 with a totally inadequate capacity in English language, then we are truly delusional.

So much for “rupture” and Vision 2050 when already in 2025, we are entrenching such irrational policy actions.

* Given the multiple and interrelated challenges currently affecting the living standard of a broad cross-section of Mauritians, do you believe electoral reform remains an urgent priority? Furthermore, how do you respond to the announcements concerning the proposed methodology and the overall scope of the electoral reform exercise?

At the outset let me emphatically say that I am totally against moving from a rules-based system to a discretionary-based system. This is extremely dangerous and could even be downright nefarious.

Let us deal with the arguments people normally use when they argue for a dose of PR (proportional representation)

The first is the “injustice” argument. This goes as follows: “oh, it is unfair because some political colours do not have a fair representation in parliament.”

But let us rewind for a minute. Why do citizens vote in the first place? In the representative parliamentary model that we have, true it is that we say people vote so that they are ‘represented’ in parliament. But what is that representation supposed to yield? Just the presence of the colours of a political party T-shirt?

The answer obviously is no. The end result of any ‘representation’ is for citizens to send people in parliament who will seek to cement a democracy which is rules-based and rights-based. Because it is ONLY when we have a fully operational rules-based and rights-based democracy that each and every citizen of this country will live with a sense of justice.

Only then will we have the sine-qua-non conditions for “morisianism” to flourish. It certainly will not flourish by the tweaking of a couple of lines in our Constitution which deal with the electoral system. It strikes me as highly delusional to think that what is blocking “morisianism” is related to those few lines in our Constitution rather than the embedded injustice rooted in our institutions vis-à-vis the lay citizen who does not have the power of being somehow connected either to the economic elite or the political class.

Now more often than not, those who put forth this ‘injustice’ argument will argue that it is not right for the PTr, MMM, or MSM not to be ‘represented’ in parliament after a 60-0. But where is the ‘injustice’ when today there is really no fundamental difference in all of these 3 parties? Can’t we fairly say that in today’s version of money politics, the only difference is who will take turns, to varying degrees to erode “le bien commun”?

When you consider that today, there is no difference in the politics of IDEAS amongst these 3 parties, the “injustice” argument doesn’t hold scrutiny.

* The second argument is that 60-0s are against democracy.

On the surface this may seem to be a valid argument. But please note that it is only valid if in our minds, all MPs on the majority side are supposed to be mere ‘marionnette’ (a term used by Guy Rozemont when he protested against the nominations that the British Governor made to the Legislative council in the 1940s).

Any sensible person will understand that these 60-0s need not be de-facto evil, if we had a strong sense of the crucial, critical importance of the role of the Legislative in this country.

If all parties – including the media – encouraged a culture of total independence of the Legislative where MPs are actually encouraged to be fearless and even insolent if need be. Whatever their motivation may be, we must understand that inbuilt in any MP’s intention to show a minister in a bad light, is a systemic insurance against any abuse of power. Until we understand this fundamental point, we will continue to operate as if a parliament is about some weird ‘solidarity’ amongst members of the same football team.

This is not only an ignorant reading of the core function of an MP in parliament; it is also a dangerous one. When we see a minister saying that an MP should have come and seen her before asking a question, everyone who cares about democracy should shout out loud in unison: NO, NO, NO! You know when I was an MP, I did not even adhere to the guideline that all PQs should be channelled through the Chief Whip. I found that to be a strange request in the first place. I have always been very allergic to anyone trying to control my freedom to think for myself.

I went to seek guidance from the officers of the National Assembly. When I ascertained there was no legal obligation for me to send my PQs “for vetting” by the Chief Whip, I always sent my PQs directly to the Clerk of the National Assembly. No one, not even the PM, had any prior notice of my questions. To be fair, the then Prime Minister never pressured me to act otherwise. This independence is essential if the parliamentary system of checks and balances is to remain effective.

Therefore, it should be clear to anyone that in itself a 60-0 should not be against democracy if all MPs are completely free to exercise their duties. It’s all about the culture we want to nurture. But you saw what happened a couple of weeks ago! A most glaring, outrageous violation of that very concept by none other than senior members of the Executive as well as a referee who believes it is her role to remind us of every so often how great of a football player she once was.

And as if that was not enough, it went even to the point of suggesting that the MP may have a hidden agenda! The MP’s very existence is to verily embarrass the Executive, not to show the Executive in a glorious light as was outrageously the case for those utterly hapless and ignorant MPs of the previous regime!

What is also needed in order to ensure that genuine democracy thrives is for a limit to the number of ministers – say a maximum of 15. And no nonsense such as this PPS or Junior minister phenomena which only distorts the balance between the Executive and the Legislative. Do you realize that currently with a majority of MPs being in the Executive (35 out of 60), this is a total mockery and an outrageous distortion of the functioning of our Westminster based parliamentary democracy? You cannot ever have more people in the Executive than the Legislative and talk about parliamentary democracy! And to add insult to injury you then try to shut down any MP who brings embarrassment to ministers. That is not democracy. Once again, this is another example of how institutions are tuned to “extractive” mode, rather than delivering for the larger interests of the population. It would be wiser to strengthen local democracy significantly than to be so top heavy in the national assembly.

So, no there is no urgency to bring any electoral reform which responds only to the “injustice” and “undemocratic” narratives peddled by some in order to advance their own restricted political-party interests, certainly not the interest of the nation at large.

Instead, what is urgent in terms of Constitutional reform as far as the elections system is concerned, is the tackling of financing of politicians. Not just at the time of elections, but throughout the 5-year mandate period. How do we ensure that our society’s very fabric is not eroded via “sponsors” of all kinds of activities of the politician throughout a 5-year mandate.

How do we ensure that the funds of the generous “sponsors” do not represent kickbacks given. Or ‘blanchiment d’argent’ from drug traffickers? If we want to tackle the obstacles which are blocking right-minded voices to be in parliament, it is imperative to tackle the widespread disease that is money politics.

As far as parliamentary representative democracy is concerned, it is true that in a plural society it is crucial to weave in the politics of representation with the politics of ideas. The glaring injustice with respect to gender representation is met with mere lip service and hypocritical “pincement de coeur”, election after election.

I heard Shakeel Mohamed rightly point out that each “section” of the population needs to have a place at the table. Yet, how very ironical it is that this argument doesn’t seem to apply to the “section” which concerns factually a clear majority: women.

Even if we were to consider bringing any “corrections” to the FPTP (First Past The Post) system, it should definitely not be via any discretionary power that lies in the hands of party leaders. We could, for example, envisage 2 corrections – both implemented by the Electoral Commissioner in order to keep to a strictly rules-based system. The first correction would be to deal with the “community”/gender aspect, and then the second “correction” could deal with the “political presence” aspect. I will submit my thoughts on this over the next few weeks.

But going well beyond reforms pertaining to the electoral system, we need Constitutional reforms which tackle larger aspects where citizens are meted out injustice in their day-to-day interactions with Institutions. What we also urgently need is a Constitutional reform which makes place for reparations based on the Truth and Justice Commission’s report. For example, through a win-win and holistic agrarian reform.

* Given that the Alliance du Changement is a coalition of diverse parties, and that the leader of the alliance must manage internal ideological and political differences (for example, between the Labour Party and the MMM), we have yet to hear his views on the clashes involving MMM Minister Arianne Navarre-Marie and Junior Minister Anishta Babooram, more recently Stéphanie Anquetil, as well as the opposing positions taken by Ameer Meea and Eshan Juman. Taking together, these developments do not bode well for the stability of the ruling alliance over the remainder of its term. What do you think?

What we need to change in this country is the current politics of spectacle to a politics of purpose and meaning. The problem is that we are stuck in transactional leadership (I promise to give you X, Y, Z in return for your vote) versus purpose-driven leadership (we will build a better country together).

Yet however painful the woes we are currently experiencing, we cannot yield to any sense of nihilism. A better alternative is possible and must emerge. One that is rooted in justice as a concept based on universal human values. Based on the deep search of the human being for meaning and purpose which capture, in the fullest sense, the idea of human dignity.

But we must keep in mind that even the most inspiring vision, on its own, cannot deliver results without purpose-driven leadership. Leadership loses its value if leaders do not consistently turn their vision into actionable results. And to do that, it is an absolute must for leaders to master the skill of execution.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 19 December 2025