Reporters Without Borders is unimpressed by Mauritius, so why do we rank higher in its global press freedom index this year? Here is the story behind the newly-released ranking, told by Cléa Kahn-Sriber who heads the organisation’s Africa unit.

It comes as a surprise that Mauritius got a higher ranking in your index – we’ve been ranked 56^th, a five-place jump. Does that mean that you think that Mauritian journalists have more freedom now than before?

Mauritius’ improvement in the index can indeed be considered a surprise! What you have to take into consideration is the fact that a ranking is always directly influenced by the situation in other countries. If Mauritius went up in the ranking, it was not because the situation has improved but because other countries have deteriorated more. The fact that the country is performing fairly well in terms of press freedom compared to other African countries does not mean that there aren’t any problems in Mauritius. What we have noticed about Mauritius is that there is enormous governmental control over the state media (the MBC), where journalists are subjected to pressure and intimidation. Also, the financial issues that certain media groups face have led to a situation where some journalists are seen to be overly cautious about how they approach some information. We also note that access to information in Mauritius is problematic.

Is there is a risk, then, that if a country gets a higher ranking in the press freedom index, even though the situation has not improved, it can use it to its advantage as a marketing tool to tell the world “look, we are doing a good job in terms of press freedom”?

Clearly, that risk is always there. That is why it is important to not just publish the index on its own, without explanation, but to get our views on the press freedom situation in specific countries, like your newsmagazine is doing now.

What stands out in Mauritius when it comes to the press freedom situation?

Mauritian journalists who do their job – especially those who cover politics – risk being subjected to intimidation. However, it’s not a problem that is unique to Mauritius or even Africa. Even in France during the election campaign, we witnessed how journalists were frequently attacked verbally when they covered political events. This year, we didn’t notice any major infractions in Mauritius, compared to certain other countries in the African region where journalists have been imprisoned or physically attacked, and where newspapers were forced to shut down.

Recently, an editor-in-chief in Mauritius was banned from the national assembly’s press gallery based on the content of an opinion piece that she wrote which the speaker took offence to and a journalist was asked to leave a press conference conducted by a minister. What is your position on that?

That sort of action is completely unacceptable in a respectable democracy. What right does the speaker of the national assembly, who is a representative of a democratic body operating according to the principles of democracy, have to deny a journalist access for personal reasons? This behaviour is not worthy of a democracy. Obviously, it must be condemned, which I believe the newsmagazine and local journalists did do.

Mauritius still lacks a Freedom of Information Act. How serious is that?

It’s serious because often, politicians criticise journalists for providing stories that contain inexactitudes, or wrong information, but it’s a vicious circle because those are the same politicians who deny reporters access to proper information in the first place. And so, journalists find themselves in an impossible situation, where they are forced to work with the information that they can get. Mauritius needs a Freedom of Information Act because unfortunately, journalists in the country tend to be mistrusted, as is the case in many other countries as well. The mistrust has led to a situation where heads of institutions refrain from talking to the media out of fear of how what they say will be reported. They also fear different types of repercussions. If Mauritius had a Freedom of Information Act, journalists would be able to access first-hand information to a greater extent. First-hand information is the basis for producing balanced journalism. It’s not just Mauritius – it remains a problem that many African countries either lack a Freedom of Information Act or have versions that are so restrictive that they still don’t allow for journalists to do their jobs properly. It’s either that, or they have laws that they don’t implement.

Recently, a Mauritian minister tried to blame journalists for his choice of “spicy” language, and it happens that politicians make personal attacks against journalists. Are attempts at discrediting journalists also a threat to press freedom?

Journalists are expected to be professional, but that professionalism does not mean pleasing politicians. Politicians have chosen to live a life in the public eye, and it’s a life that is paid for with public funds. If journalists ask tough question and those in power find that disturbing, it means that politics is not a career that was meant for them. The Trump-style approach, meaning to argue that journalists ask stupid questions, is too easy an escape route for politicians that should not be accepted.

At times, journalists in Mauritius who highlight disturbing facts are accused of being anti-patriotic or for not acting in the best interest of the country. Is that a fair argument?

No. On the contrary, it’s patriotic to demand a high standard from the people who hold the political power. It’s the reporters who ask pertinent questions, for instance about how public funds are being used, who are the real patriots. They are the ones who act in the interest of the population and of the country. The anti-patriotism argument is usually only used by politicians who have something to be reproached for.

You spoke about the control that you say that the government exercises on the MBC earlier. Is it acceptable for a country to have a state monopoly on televised news in the first place?

It’s an extremely deplorable situation. The control that the Mauritian government exercises over the state television means that there is only one voice, locally, that cannot provide anything in terms of journalistic investigation. The state media (the MBC) has become a government media instead of the public service media that it is supposed to be. Ultimately, Mauritians have been robbed of their right to access information through the TV news. And TV, as we are well aware of, is still the media that has the biggest audience. It’s also counterproductive because if there is only one national television outlet that does not live up to the expectations of the public, they will turn to international TV channels instead which will benefit foreign media groups but not Mauritius. It would be in the country’s interest to produce local news content for the TV audience that meets the public’s expectations.

Has the government of Mauritius reacted to your criticism, or to the ranking?

This year, since Mauritius was ranked higher, your government is more likely to argue that we are a great organisation – which makes it important to stress, once again, that it’s not because a country is ranked higher from one year to another that the press freedom situation there has improved. The index gives an indication of how the approach to press freedom has changed globally, as a whole. Just because there are other countries that are doing worse or have deteriorated, it doesn’t mean that yours doesn’t have any problems. On the contrary, it does.

Cléa Kahn-Sriber from Reporters Without Borders.

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, subscribe to Weekly for as little as Rs110 a month. Free delivery to your door. Contact us: touria.prayag@lexpress.mu