[Blog] End of the year report on L’Alliance du Changement

The saga went on for a short while, a soap opera with multiple endings possible. Will he go or will he stay? In the end he did stay until the next hiatus but there was suspense till the end, true in the tradition of the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock. I use that as a preamble before getting to the crux of the matter, that is, an analysis of the first year of L’alliance du changement, a progress report, on what has gone right or wrong, what could and should have been done and hopefully the best way forward.

Following the disastrous tenure of the previous government, the only way for the new government could only be up. The razzmatazz of the pre-election campaign gave the distinctive impression that all had been meticulously planned with loads of promises that will augur well for the future of all Mauritians. The excesses the population has had to endure during the previous decades were already a clear sign that the voters were ready for a change coupled with the numerous undertakings in the manifesto of L’allliance du changement and evidently the odds were stacked in their favour. The race was already won before the starting flag was lowered.

Despite appointing an array of hand-picked advisors, their shortcomings have been flagrant. The most significant faux pas has been in the decision to increase the pensionable age from 60 to 65 years and not consulting the public prior to implementing the said decision. 

A year on, the end of term report is full of missed opportunities and a plethora of mistakes for good measure. Hopefully, the second year will not be a repeat, otherwise the writing will be on the walls at the end of the five year stint. Hopefully, I am not a prophet of doom but a realist who does not see the future with tinted glasses.

So let us start at the beginning, as I said previously, it all began with the best of intentions no doubt accompanied by an extensive blue print but at the end, it was not the big bang expected, more of a fizzle.

1. An appointment committee that was part of the blue print in the manifesto is still waiting to see the daylight, it cannot be that complicated to implement.  It is not a question of being wise after the event. Instead the adopted strategy was to leave any major appointments to the whim of individual ministers instead of adopting a clear and comprehensive procedure for all to follow.  So many were chosen either on past reputations or as acknowledgement of services provided prior or during the general elections that was fair, provided they had the relevant qualifications/experiences for that particular position. I feel that all appointments should be for an initial period of one year, renewable subject to a satisfactory performance and review done by an external body. The compensation should be agreed at the time of the initial appointment should the person be sacked or asked to leave for whatever reasons. People with oversized egos should be excluded from the off as they think that they solely possess a fountain of knowledge and all others are mere simpletons.

2. The major failing of this government had been the method and the quality of their communication. Despite appointing an array of hand-picked advisors, their shortcomings have been flagrant. The most significant faux pas has been in the decision to increase the pensionable age from 60 to 65 years and not consulting the public prior to implementing the said decision. It was patently obvious that following the calamitous tenure of the outgoing government, the state of the national economy was precarious and needed urgent and significant measures to be taken to at least stop the rot. It was also evident that the government could not carry on with the status quo. One of the indisputable measure was to increase the age for qualifying for the old age pension and that is a measure that has been taken by many countries already a few years ago for purely economic reasons. The list includes many rich countries such as Japan, United States, Germany, Denmark and United Kingdom where the retirement age has already been increased to as much as 67 years old, so let us not pretend that we can do differently for a non-contributory pension. To carry on as before would be equivalent to living in cloud cuckoo land in thinking that the country could continue to sustain such a heavy financial burden without any major reforms.

An appointment committee that was part of the blue print in the manifesto is still waiting to see the daylight, it cannot be that complicated to implement.

3. The government was absolutely right but the preparation and implementation of such a consequential measure was inadequate on all fronts. Hopefully, lessons have been learnt for the future. It is imperative that information is shared for two major and significant reasons.

• It is crucial for the democratic participation, accountability and public trust as it empowers the citizens to hold the government accountable, reduces corruption and ensures transparency.
• The population will tend to accept any crucial decision more readily only when they are informed and consulted even if it goes against their personal beliefs. This is known as Authority Bias (a key psychological effect).

A newspaper recently published an end of the year report of all ministers, I will not go in details on the said report except to say that it was pretty accurate. If only most could follow the lead of the attorney general who always goes at great lengths to explain any new legislation that he is proposing. It does not only give time for all the public to peruse the proposals but to accept them more readily as they have the opportunity  to express their concerns and views. It would be good and wise for the individual minister to come and explain why some measures are taking longer to be processed and adopted by the government. For example, we have been waiting for a ‘Freedom of information act’ for a long, long time. Yet we hear nothing from the minister concerned. It would ease the anxiety of the population to know the reason of the delay and to have a progress report. This legislation was supposed to be the priority of priorities, yet there is a deafening silence on the subject.  For far too long, the population has been kept in the dark by politicians telling us that it is privileged information and cannot be divulged. The public have an undeniable right to be informed at all times.

To conclude, there are lessons to be learnt and hopefully the government will readily espouse a different approach with the welfare of a population as the key factor by establishing forthwith a better line of communication and information sharing. (A new year’s resolution).  Here endeth the lesson.

Claude Canabady