Africa-Press – Mauritius. As part of your doctorate on “Politics in Mauritius – 1968 – 2014”, what would someone discover about the politics practiced in Mauritius? Would you say the governance was transparent, democratic and predictable? Manorama Akung: The Republic of Mauritius has remained an unbroken democracy since its Independence in 1968.
While most of the former colonies, particularly those in Africa, succumbed to authoritarian regimes after the democratization process and experts predicted a pessimistic future without economic takeoff, social and political stability, as the motto of its coat of arms, “Stella clavisque maris indici” (‘the star and the key to the sea of the Indian Ocean) for Mauritius, during the last decades the Republic distinguished itself as an exemplary democracy.
According to several international and regional democracy polls/indexes, it is the first in Africa and, globally, it is ahead of countries such as France, Italy, Greece and South Africa.
* Your thesis mentions the fact that while Mauritian democracy has promoted stability and development, it has also spawned various dysfunctions, and also ethnic and corporate lobbies, political nepotism, etc.
How did it go? It should be noted that this perception of dysfunction is a global phenomenon that affects many democracies. These disappointments have always been present in democracies where what politicians promise does not always come true.
But, in this era, the disillusionment is most striking when democracies have to deal with elements that are often beyond their control and that affect their security, their economy, their livelihoods and the well-being of their citizens.
In my thesis, I especially underlined that the institutional framework (mainly our Constitution) – resulting from the negotiation between the colonial administration and the local political actors during the process of the decolonization of Mauritius – is the basis of the success of the consolidation Mauritian political life.
But I also explain that the practices that have resulted from it for decades explain the paradoxical situations that give perceptions of dysfunctions within Mauritian democracy.
The Mauritian Constitution was established in a spirit of consensus and fair sharing with, for example, an electoral system guaranteeing majority rule and other mechanisms as irremovable guarantees reassuring minorities.
For a democratic regime to be consolidated, its norms and structures must persist over time and withstand possible crises. For this, the main protagonists of the regime must accept and conform to the established norms.
In the case of Mauritius, the analysis of political life demonstrates institutional continuity with positive effects such as the development of a multiparty system, free and transparent elections, the strengthening of civil society with freedom of expression and association.
, decentralization and consolidation of the principle of the rule of law with an independent judiciary and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. Thus, one could deduce that the established norms have become the ‘only game in town’ for the protagonists involved.
However, despite respect for constitutionalism, the Mauritian regime faces democratic stagnation in terms of, for example, the centrality of ethnicity, the dominant power of the executive and the capture of wealth through networks close to the state, among others.
Thus, several observers since the 1980s have suggested institutional reforms, such as that of the Constitution, the electoral system and other checks and balances.
But will it be enough to change laws and institutions to improve the level of good governance? The Political History of Mauritius demonstrates that in Mauritius the instrumentalization of constitutional norms would have become, over time, malleable and the formal institutions would be manipulated to serve the cause of the elites of society.
* On the other hand, one may not be comfortable with lobbies – community or corporate – and with other forms of dysfunction. But could we say that these dysfunctions have paradoxically preserved the stability of the country?
Since independence, the political system of Mauritius has been based on a power-sharing agreement between the country’s main ethnic groups in order to reconcile majority rule and minority rights.
This power sharing is characterized in Parliament by large coalitions of parties more or less representing the different ethnic groups, a degree of proportionality for the allocation of ministerial posts and also within the government administration, and the electoral system, among others.
.
The institutionalization of this concept of multiculturalism was consolidated in the late 1980s-1990s by promoting the idea of a ‘rainbow’ nation where each individual could find their own color. This unwritten pact has become entrenched to become a political culture.
According to several observers, this separation of power between the historical bourgeoisie (the private sector) and the state bourgeoisie, which prevented the emergence of a dictatorship, is a typical element of Mauritian pluralism.
But this system also generates strong lobbies that give rise to dysfunctions. In Mauritius, the State is the main institution that holds almost all political power. Consequently, the state – having access to a large part of the resources of society – becomes the place of accumulation and enrichment of wealth.
Thus, anyone wishing to rise in the social hierarchy of society should either lead or integrate the institutions of the state, or at least secure their favors by means of patronage or ‘backing’.
Mauritian politics operates according to a double register, on the one hand, that of official norms which ensure external legitimacy and, on the other hand, that of informal norms represented by a system of personal networks of socio-economic and political solidarity.
There are several types of networks (corporatist, clientelist, pluralist, among others) that have persisted in all political regimes in the world for centuries. These networks are normally ‘secret’ groups of people who use the state to achieve their goals.
In Mauritius, there are mainly two types of networks: 1) the social network which mainly includes political agents, and leaders and members of socio-cultural groups, 2) the economic network which includes both those close to power in terms of ties kinship, friendships and ethnicity but also key members of the private sector.
* What explains the existence of these networks? The result of these networks is the following: State management experiences deviations from official standards. There is corruption, favoritism and nepotism for enrichment.
This practice leads, in turn, to inefficient administration and services and waste of public resources and inequalities in the distribution of wealth and employment.
After Independence, the number of scandals and denunciations of appointments based on proximity to the power in place demonstrates a well-established political culture. The phenomenon of ‘lev paké gone’ after each general election reinforces the certainty of the presence of this network of power.
With the perpetuation of informal norms, the political space boils down to a matter of power sharing between the elites where alternation takes place on the front because the same families/parties/networks have succeeded each other for decades.
Thus, like money, power circulates but the political space remains under the dominance of a handful of individuals, and this, paradoxically, because the political class enjoys a legitimacy granted to it by the Mauritian people themselves. same. This state of affairs weakens the democratic base and calls into question the objective of the stability of institutional norms.
* We could consider from another angle that, despite the crises the country has faced in the past due to the dysfunctions of its democratic model, our political system has finally developed a certain form of resilience for the good of the country.
What is your opinion on this? It is true that the country has been able to adapt to almost all challenges, whether in economic, social or political terms.
Since its independence, Mauritius has been perceived as a democratic state which has always worked for the progress and development of its citizens. According to democracy indexes, successive governments have adhered to formal democratic norms that regularize administration.
For example, following free and fair general elections, all successive governments have been able to maintain the rule of law, with an independent judiciary, the consolidation of human rights, tolerance and respect for religious, ethnic and cultural diversity, and also opposition from other parties and civil society.
In terms of ever-increasing human and social development, sound economic policies have been accompanied by a strengthened welfare state (with free education and health, among others) and improvements in utility service infrastructure (water, electricity, utilities sanitary, etc.
), transportation and communications, and technology, and all of that, across the country. Furthermore, power is decentralized through local authorities.
In terms of good governance, for more than 15 years, the country has been ranked first in Africa according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance.
However, according to this same index, Mauritius shows a decline in good governance since 2012, especially with regard to security and respect for the rule of law, gender equality, access to information, political participation and sustainable economic opportunities.
There are also institutional flaws in terms of the prevalence of clientelism within the civil service and shortcomings in terms of equality of opportunity and treatment for all citizens and the democratization of the economy and the capacity of civil society to fully exercise its functions.
It should also be noted that the investigations conducted by the Justice and Truth Commission revealed a very broad perception of political exclusion among certain groups. In addition, every government term since independence has been marred by corruption scandals.
Compared to other developed countries with a longer and grander history of struggle for “good governance”, like France, the Republic of Mauritius, given its specificity as a small multi-ethnic island state, can boast to have reached the stage where it is classified among the ‘best States of “good governance”, but there is still a long way to go in the way of good governance and a consolidated democracy.
In addition, other challenges such as the aging of the population, the impoverishment of the middle class and other imminent economic consequences – resulting from globalization – weigh heavily on the future of the country.
* Finally, what would have made the system work, in your opinion? People ? The institutions? Political alliances? Institutionalization provides legitimacy and stability to the political system in place.
The post-independence history of the Mauritian multiparty system shows an institutionalized and entrenched party system that has helped consolidate a stable Mauritian democracy.
In addition, Mauritians as free citizens, able to make thoughtful and deliberate choices, hold this power of the people which they regularly demonstrate during elections and guarantee alternation.
Elections are the symbol and the act at the heart of modern democracies. This is the moment when the citizen engages directly in political life and when he designates the identity of those who will govern.
In Mauritius, the political parties that govern the country are the free choice of these people. It should be noted that despite a decline in terms of voter turnout in recent years, Mauritius has always had a high voter turnout during general elections.
However, as I have just explained, this institutionalization also includes flaws. * At one time, it was up to the institutions to protect the democratic system of the people (in charge).
Recall the intervention of the judiciary in what appeared to be politically motivated arrests through the provisional charges, as well as in the case of the DPP.
Do you think these checks and balances are adequate? The Mauritian Constitution is based on the separation of power with the independence of the Judiciary and the Executive. This separation of the judiciary and the executive dates from the period of the French Revolution.
Since its independence, Mauritius has remained governed by the rule of law thanks to the proper functioning of its judiciary – generally considered to be a credible, honest and independent institution.
All citizens, up to the highest authorities, are subject to the rule of law. However, several reports, for example, the Mackay Commission set up in 1997 to review the legal system point out flaws. There are paradoxes that undermine the perception of a fully independent judiciary.
There are some criticisms, for example, in terms of the efficiency of judicial proceedings, the perception that there is a two-tier justice and that the judiciary is more lenient towards high-ranking figures.
Moreover, there is the perception that certain people or certain groups are even above the law, especially after the numerous acquittals of former ministers or high personalities accused of corruption and other offenses in recent decades or even cases of punitive transfer of public officers who dare to denounce certain wrongdoings.
* With regard to the role played by political parties and political personnel, and their influence on Mauritian society, there are growing signs of disaffection from politics towards politics in general for various reasons.
Whose fault is it: the political institutions? The leaders ? The people themselves? It should be noted that this disaffection is a global phenomenon. A democracy requires the mobilization of all or nearly all of these citizens in political activities.
However, the participation of every citizen in all political decisions as in a direct democracy is difficult in modern democracies. Thus, these societies need organizations and institutions such as political parties to represent the wishes and interests of citizens as much as possible.
Political parties have an essential role in the institutionalization and consolidation of democracy. They are key players in articulating and bringing together the different interests and aspirations of the people.
The institutionalization of the major parties has helped them to exercise their role effectively in terms of their capacity to determine the interests at stake and to unite around them.
In contrast, smaller parties (especially those on the left that challenge the system) have failed in terms of organizing to be able to function effectively.
The bipolarity, resulting from the games of alliances which has been established since the 1960s, has helped to promote political stability and to increase the legitimacy of the political system.
This legitimacy is not only recognized by the main political protagonists but also by the population, which fulfills its civic duty in large numbers at each general election. However, there are also shortcomings in the degree of institutionalization.
This includes flaws in terms of recruitment (especially to the detriment of women and young people) by parties, the monopoly of major parties and chronic instabilities due to alliance games,
the instrumentalization of ethnicity and the hidden practice of party financing. Thus, Maurice moved from the ‘class politics’ of the 1930s-1970s to the ‘ethnic politics’ of the 1980s-1990s and now finds himself in the era of ‘money politics’.
* There is also the question of elective dictatorship, for example when changes are introduced or the Constitution is modified without the mandate of the people.
Politicians put themselves at the mercy of the electorate on the eve of Election Day, but this equation is reversed after the election results are announced, with the electorate at the mercy of the political staff for the next five years . That probably won’t change anytime soon. What do you think ?
The greatest shortcoming in Mauritian democracy is the lack of political participation (for example, through referendums on certain constitutional changes and bills, especially those that are closely linked to the citizens) of society as a whole.
The solution lies in the consolidation of the power of civil society but also in the education of citizens. Nevertheless, more political participation of the masses must also mean the participation of a population that has acquired full legal and political maturity because the opposite would be more harmful than beneficial.
But how to define and judge this maturity? It remains a difficult task. Furthermore, constitutions are often written in times of crisis or at ‘turning points’ because as long as social and political groups are satisfied with a country’s constitution, there is no reform.
In Mauritius, there have been political crises and disputes, but these demands do not weigh as heavily as the advantages of the Constitution and despite the consensus on the need for reform, Mauritian society – by its plural nature – does not has not yet found the alternative solutions.
Be that as it may, as long as the standards of these institutions are favorable to the politicians in power, they will have every interest in maintaining them, but the challenge would be to see to what extent and until when the Mauritian citizens will consider these rules as legitimate.
* What is your opinion on the Government’s electoral reform proposals and the counterpoints expressed in different circles?
Throughout the period of constitutional evolution in Mauritius, the colonial administration attempted to develop a constitutional structure that would safeguard the country against the violence that affected decolonization in other multi-ethnic settings.
However, there was no ideal blueprint for devising an appropriate institutional solution as reconciling ‘majority rule’ with minority rights could be achieved through a multitude of institutional arrangements.
The challenge today would also be to find alternative institutions acceptable to the majority and reassuring to minorities, and which can ensure the stability that Mauritius has been able to maintain and consolidate until today. I am not an expert in the electoral system.
But what I would like to emphasize is that half a century after independence, Mauritians find themselves at a crossroads with the choice between perpetuating a political system and its paradoxes, or restoring a new boost to the consolidation of democracy by resorting to institutional transformations.
However, if these transformations remain compartmentalized between purely legalistic and formal reforms without implying an evolution that also takes into account a fundamental change in relation to the democratization of political participation and informal norms or ‘parallel institutions’, the paradoxes arise.
will perpetuate. There is significant disagreement over the proposal to replace the best-loser seats with additional best-loser seats, chosen by party leaders.
Despite the observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on our electoral system, is there not a form of hypocrisy in the campaign to eliminate the system of the best loser, insofar as ethnic/communal considerations have been implemented in our system – eg when the President/Vice President, ministers, heads of parastatals etc.
are appointed? The Best Loser System [BLS] has not only been seen as a guarantor of symbolic ethnic representation in parliament for minorities since independence, but also has strategic value for politicians belonging to minority groups.
The precedents where minority leaders were drafted by the “BLS” remain engraved in the memory of the main parties and explain the reservations of certain leaders as to the abolition of the system without any other similar guarantee.
Some civil society activists and observers are calling for the removal of the BLS to eliminate communalism. But it should be noted that it is not only the BLS that institutionalizes ethnicity, there is also the drawing of the districts.
Ethnic nominations of candidates go beyond the electoral system and formal norms. For example, it is not a law that advocates the appointment of Cabinet ministers, members of the Councils of parastatal bodies, among others, taking into account ethnic criteria.
* It is very unlikely that the Government’s electoral reform proposals will be considered given the opposition of various interests and the unlikely formation of the parliamentary majority required for this to happen. Did the government have a bad strategy?
The analysis of the majority of amendments to the Constitution since 1968 shows that, in general, it is circumstantial factors that have led politicians to initiate these reforms and not desires to improve obsolete or deficient mechanisms.
The prospects for reform are by no means bright. But, in the event of proven reform, it should be hoped that it will be more democratic with referendums or the participation of civil society (NGOs, extra-parliamentary groups, press, unions, among others).
In truth, to date almost all reform processes have been decided by the political elite. * What do you see as elements constituting threats to our Democracy? Could we protect the Republic by democratizing our democracy itself and ensuring the democratization of our political parties?
Of course, democratization within political parties is imperative. But the biggest problem of Mauritian society is the flaws in terms of civic education. It is true that Mauritius has a very high level of literacy and that the vast majority of Mauritians are educated.
But, for a long time, there has been a lack at the level of the school curriculum where the emphasis has been mainly placed on academic and not civic education.
This perception of individualism is increasingly visible across the world, and has been encouraged by neoliberal dogma, technology, a consumer society. In Mauritius, this perception is reinforced by the complacency due to life in a ‘democratic’ society.
Thus, as long as he has his ’boute’ (his share), since the 1980s, most Mauritians have been less visible in the process of collective denunciation like socio-economic inequalities and other cases. related to the perversion of governance.
However, paradoxically, other observers argue that it is the conception of individualistic rights in Chapter 2 of the Mauritian Constitution and the liberal individualism of Mauritians, encouraged by a low degree of political multiculturalism, that has maintained political stability and social.
Moreover, “individualism” does not systematically mean “lack of patriotism”, “solidarity” and “altruism”. According to a recent survey, the lack of protest – despite growing dissatisfaction and pessimism among Mauritians about socio-economic inequalities and elite malfeasance – denotes a resignation resulting in social disengagement and a lack of confidence in improving the situation.
state of affairs. However, it should be noted another element is that since the colonial period until today, the history of the country has always been exploited by the different ethnic groups in order to promote themselves to the detriment of a national history.
Ignorance of history and civil rights perpetuates fear (another tool used by elites since the colonial era). This maintains prejudices and divisions within society.
For example, almost fifty years after its Independence, the country’s political history is not taught in schools and it is only recently that the concept of democracy, the functions of the Constitution and of civil society have been introduced into the curriculum.
That being said, despite this inclusion in the curriculum, the few secondary schools/colleges in the upper classes that teach history mainly focus on the history of slavery and indentured workers, neglecting the political aspect and the period of democratization and post-independence. In truth, to date there is no real manual or guide for teachers on this subject.
For More News And Analysis About Mauritius Follow Africa-Press
