Weekly speaks to Kugan Parapen, Rezistans Ek Alternativ candidate in the Belle Rose-Quatre Bornes by-election. He explains what his party has to offer and how it plans to coexist with the private sector should it come to power one day.

“Tomorrow, if I am sitting at the helm of government, I will always consider a project from the private sector, but I will consider what impact it will have on my people, in employment terms, the environment and if it fits the global vision of Mauritius.”

“Knowing that their days are numbered, I think that they will try and benefit as much as they can from being in government.”

“At the end of the day, the private sector can only do what the government allows it to do.”

Seven or eight candidates and then one more from ‘Rezistans Ek Alternativ’ (ReA). Isn’t that one too many?

We are a democratic country and I don’t think there is an optimum number of candidates for elections. I was a candidate for Quatre Bornes and there were more than 30 candidates if I am not mistaken. A high number of candidates is a good sign for democracy. It shows that lots of people have something to say and want to be in parliament and that it’s not a bi-partisan model with only two sides confronting each other.

As a party, you claim to be offering something new. What are you offering that’s new?

It’s new relative to the other parties at this point in time. If you look at the historical timeline, the causes that ReA is fighting for are similar to what the Labour Party was defending in the 1930s and what the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) stood for in the 1970s.

So you are proposing to take us back to the past?

Not really. We are just saying that the fight which these two parties wanted to win has not been won. We have to be honest about that. The Labour Party was taken over by the state bourgeoisie and, if you talk to people in the MMM, they will tell you that the MMM at its beginnings and the MMM after 1982 are two completely different parties. We have to fulfill the vision and ambition of the people at the centre of the creation of these parties. If you look at the economy and society today, there is still a lot to be done.

What economic model are you offering?

Some people are whipping up fear by saying that we are close to communism and stuff like that. Along the spectrum of the left, there are a lot of different possibilities. Communism is an extreme position on the left. We are not in there, nor are we on the centrist position of what traditional leftist parties represent. I would say we are in the middle of those two. What we want to create is a type of society where everybody is able to realise his or her ambitions and work.

That’s what everybody says. How will you go about that concretely?

Let’s take the example of the wages that people receive nowadays. Most people earn very low wages compared to what they should be earning, not just in absolute terms but also in relative terms and in terms of what’s being done in other countries across the world. If you ask about which model inspires us, I would gladly point to the Nordic states like Sweden, Finland, etc. which also used to be controlled by an economic elite back in the 1900s, and which, over the years and the commoners’ uprisings, have managed to reverse course on that and create a society where effort and talent are rewarded.

You said that it took those countries a long time to get to that level. How would you take us there overnight?

We don’t claim to be a party with a magic wand. We leave delivering miracles to others. That’s not our policy. When you look at the economy, you have to have a short, intermediate and long-term plan. When we say we want to become a Nordic country in the Indian Ocean, we don’t claim it will happen overnight. There are lots of things to be done. If we came to power tomorrow, there are measures to be taken immediately, goals to be achieved over the medium-term and others in the long-term.

What is the immediate vision of ReA?

What this country needs is a strong and independent government which thinks and acts on behalf of the people, the people only. I am not saying that ReA won’t pay attention to the private sector, but it won’t take its orders from those at the top of the economic ladder.

Don’t you work for the private sector?

Yes I do, and so do you.

Yes, but I have no problem with that.

Neither do I. Working for the private sector does not mean that we don’t have individual views. That’s the thing that Mauritius needs to understand: when I am an employee, I have my employee hat on, but when I am working for the people then I am accountable to the people. Today, as an employee, I am accountable to those who employ me. If the people employ me tomorrow, I am accountable to them.

But, in the meantime, you are enriching the private sector embracing its vision and furthering its aims, aren’t you?

That may be the case but the politicians who have been in power have been employed by the people but have been the agents of the private sector for the last 15, 20 or 25 years. I am just a young individual trying to earn a living. Most people my age are in my situation. I do not claim to be a prophet; I face the same situation as most people my age and I need a salary to earn my way. At the end of the day, the private sector can only do what the government allows it to do. Tomorrow, if I am sitting at the helm of government, I will always consider a project from the private sector, but I will consider what impact it will have on my people, in employment terms, the environment and if it fits the global vision of Mauritius.

That’s what every government has done. What makes you different?

I am not sure every government has done that. Far from it. I think that most governments coming to power lack vision. If you ask me what the grand social vision of any government has been since 1987, it would be very hard for me or for anybody else to tell you that. There have been piecemeal solutions, and we have not been proactive but purely reactive. The aim of the private sector is to make as much money as possible. The aim of society is to maximise welfare. And the maximisation of profit and the maximisation of welfare are two very different concepts.

How would you maximise welfare without maximising productivity?

That’s what we need to explain more. Maximisation of welfare is not necessarily incompatible with maximisation of profit. The minimum wage, for example, is a constraint on companies. But, if you have a minimum wage, you are enabling people at the bottom of the ladder to have a decent life.

How do you propose to increase wages without increasing productivity?

The returns generated by the economy for shareholders are among the highest in the world. So how can an economy that has a lack of productivity be producing the best returns over the last 15 years? The reason is very simple: the economy has only catered for the interests of the shareholders. And the price for the maximisation of profit for shareholders are employees not being paid decent salaries and taxes being reduced across the board for all sorts of reasons by successive governments and the privatisation of the state jewels. When you talk about productivity, why would someone whose interests are not aligned with profitability give the best of himself?

Are you suggesting that employees should share in the profits of the company they are working for?

Definitely. We keep talking about solidarity. Well, if the company is doing well enough, everybody should have a slice of the cake.

You know that we are living in the global world. If you start putting impossible conditions on companies, they will go somewhere else. How will you stop that?

Any company that cannot pay a decent salary to its workers, I would love to see their figures and balance sheet.

Once you start looking into their books, they will go somewhere else…

Somewhere where exploitation of the labour force is allowed?

Probably.

Okay, you might lose some exporters in the short term, but those having more wages will reinvest everything into the economy and create more jobs. If tomorrow 10 companies close down but 20 others open, I will be happy because more jobs will be created than those lost. Mauritians are very scared of losing jobs but unemployment is not so much the issue as is the insecurity that unemployment exposes someone to.

All this sounds very nice but for the short-term, you are not offering anything new. It’s almost like sitting on the fence. I think that ReA has, in spite of its high ideals, always sat on the fence. If you take the example of your fight to abolish the Best Loser System, your stand was very mild: “We are not asking for it to be abolished completely; we just want one category for people who refuse to declare their ethnical belonging.” Don’t you think you should go the full way if you want to offer an alternative?

What you say about the Best Loser System is your own interpretation of things. Our stand has always been to abolish the Best Loser System.

But when you went to court, that is what you said.

We’re not going to go to court and tell them to abolish the Best Loser System. On what basis are we going to say that?

So, you adjusted, didn’t you?

We developed a strategy that would be valid in a courtroom. But if you then ask us on a political platform to spell out our vision for the political system and the rules regulating the elections in Mauritius, we would state clearly that we are totally against the Best Loser System. What people need to realise is that when you go into a courtroom, there is a strategy. We’ve kind of found the spot on which you can actually challenge the core system. We wanted to be able to stand as Mauritians. The interpretation of the court was that if they want to stand as Mauritians, let’s give them that additional category.

But that is what you asked for in your petition.

Right now, basically, we’ve been given the choice to either declare or not declare our ethnic belonging but we cannot say that everyone is going into the election now as a Mauritian. We still don’t want to have anything to do with that system. What we have achieved is just part one of a long fight.

A little at a time? Too little maybe?

A lot of people in Mauritius are against the Best Loser System but has anyone come as close as us to abolishing it? I don’t think so. You might say we sit on the fence but I’d rather sit on the fence and have concrete action being done than just saying we’re going to change the system we don’t want and not being able to do anything.

Coming back to the by-election, a lot of people fear that the opposition will tear each other apart, which is going to be good for the government. Do you share the same fear?

When you look at how things are panning out, you’ve got to agree with that to some extent. I think it’s in the government’s interest that the opposition keeps having a go at each other. But if I were in the shoes of people in government – which I don’t want to be– I would tell myself that I’ve got two more years, I can hold a by-election and be done with that and then have two more years in parliament to continue to do…

…To do well for the country…

(Laughs) To do well for the country? (Continues laughing.) Well, to continue doing what they’ve been doing which is everything but well for the country. Knowing that their days are numbered, I think that they will try and benefit as much as they can from being in government. But the day of reckoning will come sooner or later for them.

Will it come during the by-election?

It depends whether they put up a candidate or they decide to support one of the candidates already fielded.

Who are they likely to support?

That’s a very good question.

Do you have the answer?

They’ll probably support someone willing to have an alliance with them in the next election. Knowing Mauritian politics, that could be anyone.

Including ReA?

No! We’re not fighting only the government and the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM). We’re fighting all the traditional parties. If we’re going to go into an alliance, it’s not going to be with any of the traditional parties. Unless there is a radical change in those parties.

What about the Reform Party then? After all, Bhadain and Subron are good friends, aren’t they?

Yes, but ReA and the Reform Party are not necessarily good friends. At least ReA is a party that has a vision and recruits people based on that. I’m afraid the Reform Party doesn’t. It just recruits people who want to do politics at the moment. For them, it’s more a question of timing rather than conviction. My great fear is that a lot of people who are joining the Reform Party might be left really disappointed a few months after the election.

If you do not win this by-election, who would you wish to win?

(Hesitates) I’d like someone from the left to win if I don’t. I’m not going to name anyone.

What do you qualify as left?

Anyone who shares the values of ReA.

Who shares the values of ReA?

Lalit and the Mouvement 1er Mai are very much in line with our values. Perhaps we are a little bit more active politically than they are. If you ask me who I would like to see win, it’s anybody from those parties because we tend to share the same values.

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