"No opposition anywhere deserves to win elections only on the back of popular discontent

Interview: Milan Meetarbhan

‘Sitting back and waiting for the tide to turn because of anti-incumbency is not a viable option. And shouldn’t be one’

* ‘Not all parties in Mauritius would need State funding! One has a war chest that will enable it to fight several campaigns’

* ‘First and foremost the electorate must decide whether they want people of integrity, competence and respect for values… to be in government and vote accordingly’

Milan Meetarbhan, well-known legal and constitutional mind, shares in this interview his views on various issues of relevance regarding the state of political governance and democratic culture in the country. The Opposition has, as is their democratic duty, attacked the performance of the ruling party/alliance as one affair chased another in the headlines, but how far would they be prepared to go to implement change once in office? Milan Meetarbhan weighs in on the desirable contours of what should be on the cards of a reform-minded political dispensation.

Mauritius Times: Nadhim Zahawi has been sacked last Sunday as Tory party chairman after an inquiry, ordered by Rishi Surnak and conducted by ethics adviser Sir Laurie Magnus into the handling of his tax affairs, found that Mr Zahawi had “shown insufficient regard for the general principles of the ministerial code” and had not fulfilled the requirements of being an “honest, open and an exemplary leader”. If ministers fall foul of the ministerial code in the UK, they are damned… Too bad we do not have the equivalent of Sir Laurie Magnus here, isn’t it?

Milan Meetarbhan: First, it’s too bad that we do not have an equivalent Ministerial Code in Mauritius. Then it’s too bad that we do not have an Ethics Adviser. But irrespective of whether you have a Code or an Ethics Tsar, the most important thing in any democratic society is whether the ruling class has a culture of ethical conduct or whether there is no culture whatsoever.

Any society needs safeguards, accountability mechanisms, judicial control and so on but first and foremost the electorate must decide whether they want people of integrity, competence and respect for values and institutions to be in government and vote accordingly.

Should the electorate exercise such discernment, the political class will be forced to adopt a different culture and to commit themselves to freedom of information, enhanced accountability frameworks and proper enforcement.

If we have a culture of impunity and selective enforcement of the law and the people do not demand better then we will continue to see an erosion of values and integrity.

* Labour’s party chairman Annelise Dodds criticised PM Rishi Sunak’s handling of the situation, saying “We knew about these allegations for a very long period of time. The prime minister… vacillated, he wobbled, he couldn’t decide what to do…” She concluded by saying that he “didn’t need an investigation to deal with this matter, he needed a backbone”. Does this strike a chord with what obtains here?

Yes, sure it does. But some don’t need a backbone but a sense of what is right and what is not. Only then can they realise that the conduct of proceedings in the so-called temple of democracy or the flagrant pursuit of a hidden agenda by a regulator or the crude propaganda of a state broadcaster have gone beyond the limits of decency and action is required.

No country needs 2-3 years to find out if there was what the French call ’emploi fictif’ or not. The old legal fiction in some countries was that the King can do no wrong and thus has absolute immunity. Some believe this also applies in what purports to be a democracy.

Those whose philosophy has always been that ‘moralité pas rempli ventre’ or that ‘WE are Government and WE decide’… need more than a backbone.

* The latest Mo Ibrahim report informs us that although Mauritius ranks 1st (out of 54) in Overall Governance in 2021, the country’s score has deteriorated over the last decade (2012-2021) … at an accelerated pace over the most recent five years (2017-2021). That should not come as a surprise, but the governance issue does not seem to have as yet become a determining factor in who wins or loses elections, isn’t it?

The Mo Ibrahim Index is the latest of a series of reports, ratings and indexes published by international bodies which have found that good governance has declined in our country in the last few years. They have confirmed what local independent observers have been saying repeatedly. The response of political leaders, who are in a state of denial, is to accuse these international bodies of conniving with the opposition!

Good governance, accountability, transparency, are not only matters for academic debate. They affect people’s daily lives more than they realise. Corruption, theft of taxpayers’ money, nepotism deprives those working hard to earn qualifications of what they deserve, fraudulent practices rig the procurement process, lack of independent and impartial institutions make a mockery of regulation and administrative integrity. So good governance should in any democracy be a key indicator of where a country is heading and how people will fare.

* The current government has adopted a business-as-usual attitude even in the face of the misgovernance issues which have hogged the headlines these last three years. One could expect that it will remain unperturbed no matter what critics, whether locally or even rating agencies, say about its record on this count. That is unlikely to change any time soon, don’t you think?

A government may remain unperturbed and unlikely to change its ways but the country will change and the people and the country’s institutions will come out weaker and poorer. Of course, there’s not always a judicial remedy to every ill. Some argue that there are acts or omissions of rulers which can only be met with a political sanction. And political sanctions come only once in every five years. This is no more acceptable.

Of course, this does not mean that people should take the law in their own hands even if they should be free to express their opposition to practices and policies. We need to ensure that in between elections there are adequate mechanisms, independent institutions, a free press, watchful civil society organisations which will keep a government on its toes and keep people informed of what’s happening.

* But if you want change to happen, that can only take place if the people vote for change, and have to be convinced that what is on offer is a credible and workable alternative. That does not seem forthcoming so far?

No opposition anywhere deserves to win elections only on the back of popular discontent with the incumbent. Of course, highlighting abuses, misgovernance and harmful policies are part of what a challenger does. But the one who does only that does not deserve to win.

In a mature society people expect to be told, and they have every right to do so, what the challenger will do once in office. They have every right to know how credible and effective the proposed policies are and whether the challenger has the right people and the genuine commitment to implement these alternative policies. Sitting back and waiting for the tide to turn because of anti-incumbency is not a viable option. And shouldn’t be one.

* It might indeed seem to be a tall order for the existing mainstream parties, whether in power or in the opposition, to effect change within their own party establishments themselves. Does that seem to be the case?

Renewal is part of life and political parties, like any organisation, have to continually renew their composition and programmes. It’s true that succession planning is not always easy for these parties. Each mainstream party is identified with a leader and, in fact, many voters will vote for that leader whom they want as Prime Minister and not for the candidates standing in their respective constituencies.

Political parties in Mauritius, generally speaking, do not have proper structures, internal democracy is scant, decisions are rarely taken collectively. Everything revolves around the leader. So, it’s not surprising that the leader becomes the embodiment of the party. But as a result of this, anytime the leader goes down in the polls, the party also does badly and there is no avenue for rank-and-file members or even party establishment to effect, as you say, change.

* Opinions may diverge on this, but are you in favour of some form of state funding of political parties, that is, taxpayers and consumers picking up the tabs, for parties activities and their electoral campaigns? What should be the strict countervailing rights of the population to prevent abuse or opening an unknown Pandora’s box?

Not all parties in Mauritius would need State funding! One has a war chest that will enable it to fight several campaigns. But that does not mean that that party will not accept state funding if this is offered! Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 3 February 2023