This week, we seek the bold views and profound thoughts of former President of the Republic Cassam Uteem about a range of topics – political, geopolitical, social and economic. Many of his answers are thought-provoking. Read on…

“An immediate stop should be put to ministerial intervention for the award of contracts to close acquaintances, shady figures and fake companies that are out to defraud the State and fleece the population.”

Let’s start from where we broke off last time we spoke: after Nando Bodha’s resignation, we both put forward the hypothesis that it might have been orchestrated by the MSM itself. It was a funny joke at that time. Is it still a joke, considering the waves he is making in the discussions for a common front?

If I remember correctly, when Nando Bodha’s resignation came up during the conversation you are referring to, it was still hot news with a lot of speculation as we were then labouring under the delusion that he had been lured into taking that step by the offer of a post of prime minister in a future MMM-led government. If such were to be the case, we believed it would be a major obstacle to the establishment of an opposition common front against the ruling parties, which would be a real boon to the MSM.

And lo and behold…

Yes. This was followed by Bérenger’s awkward and ill-inspired move to oust Navin Ramgoolam as a potential future candidate to the post of prime minister of a united opposition gave credence to that widely held hypothesis. On realising his blunder, however, Bérenger in a matter-of-fact way, flip-flopped his position on this issue and, in spite of his ‘nothing is decided until everything is decided’ slogan finds today no objection to Ramgoolam leading the opposition at the next general elections and serving as prime minister for half a term.  

In the meantime, Nando Bodha has set up his own political party, the Rassemblement Mauricien and has been more open about his primeminsterial ambitions, hasn’t he?

Yes, he joined the l’Entente de l’Espoir, with the MMM, the PMSD and the Reform Party and, flexing his muscles, he has now revealed his ambition, based on his ‘proven track record’, to be the country’s future prime minister.

Isn’t that a legitimate ambition?

If that is quite understandable, his open kick against Ramgoolam seems to be unwarranted and could be taken as a flash of temper almost akin to Bérenger’s gaffe.

Why?

Because the leaders of all four political parties, including Bodha, have explicitly invited Ramgoolam’s Labour Party to join forces to face their common opponents in the forthcoming municipal elections. It has, as could be expected, given rise to a war of words between Bodha and a few labour underlings while, at the first opportunity, Ramgoolam got back at him. All this does not augur well for an opposition that wants to cast a wide net and be seen as a credible alternative to the current MSM government.  

Do you still think we will end up seeing a united common front for the municipal elections at least?

It is in the interest of the opposition to show a united common front, both for the municipal and the general elections, if it wants to stand a chance to win those elections. Most of the opposition leaders are sensible and experienced politicians and I am sure they realise that facing the ruling parties in scattered order in any election could be an enterprise fraught with uncertainties and unpleasant surprises. For the ruling parties, especially the MSM, it would, in these trying times, be a blessing in disguise. If you ask me, I think the opposition should stop forthwith shooting itself in the foot and its leaders must come up with a political manifesto, for both elections, that contains bold and innovative ideas to meet the people’s expectations for a decent living. Instead of jockeying for positions in an eventual coalition, they should set themselves the task of showing how, in this post-Covid and  Russia/Ukraine crisis era, they would go about meeting the basic needs of a debt-burdened population with a hyper-inflation and a constantly shrinking purchasing power, and creating an environment conducive to the optimum development of the individual that protects and defends the fundamental rights of the people, promotes intercultural exchanges, eradicating poverty, drug addiction and exclusion, discarding once and for all any form of nepotism and putting a special premium on meritocracy and good governance. They should be able to convince their constituents that, unlike the present regime, theirs will be one that is clean, transparent and above board.

Are you saying that without a common front of the opposition, the MSM will come back to power?

This is not beyond the realms of possibility. To me, it is not at all a far-fetched hypothesis, especially in so far as the general elections are concerned. With the First Past the Post electoral system we have inherited from the British and which all the major political parties benefiting therefrom are conveniently maintaining, with the constituencies’ boundaries as they are drawn and requires no gerrymandering, faced with a fragmented opposition, it would not be surprising that the 30 odd percent of the popular votes that the MSM and its allies can muster, at any one given time, would be enough, in a three or four-cornered fight, to see them win the day and come back to power.

“It is in the interest of the opposition to show a united common front, both for the municipal and the general elections, if it wants to stand a chance to win those elections.”

By saying that, aren’t you conceding that the party is very strong as things stand, in spite of all the protests and criticism?

I am not in any way suggesting that the MSM is ‘very strong’.  As is the case with the Labour Party, the MSM too has today its own hard-core voters that, based on the last two general election results, could be around 25 % of the electorate. The insignificant but nonetheless decisive contribution of the multiple offshoots of the MMM that have jumped on the MSM bandwagon would be enough to tilt the balance again in the latter’s favour, in any three-cornered fight. Besides, it is an undisputed fact that the MSM has proved its mastery of the use of the levers of power and the levers of government to buy additional votes to win an election.  Moreover, you know as well as I do, that objective criteria do not always determine the choice of the majority of the population in an election and therefore in spite of all the protests and criticism, other subjective factors get easily in the way and people then vote with their wallet or their baser instincts of greed and selfishness.

How would the new political parties fit it in the alliance? What would be their role?

The leaders of the four political parties within L’Entente de l’Espoir have for several months now been seen to be faring on quite well together and have shown a spirit of compromise essential for such partnership or alliance. Bodha and Badhain, whom you call the newcomers I suppose, are both politicians with ministerial experience not altogether devoid of charisma albeit without as yet solid grassroot support.  As former MSM insiders, they both have had interesting stories to relate and often convincing arguments of the way power is exercised and by whom in the current government. It remains to be seen whether in the event of the discussions with the Labour Party, the l’Entente de l’Espoir will speak with one voice or whether, as Ramgoolam seems to will it, the newcomers will be side-lined or marginalised. It is only when the leaders get down to the nitty-gritty of an alliance agreement that the role assigned to each partner will be defined and known.

The Labour Party insists that in any alliance, the rapport de force has to be taken into account? What do you understand by that?

The message couldn’t be louder and clearer: the Labour Party feels that it is the stronger political force in the opposition, both in the rural and urban areas, and should therefore obtain the lion’s share in terms of the number of nominated candidates and the eventual posts to be filled after the election.

Do you agree with that?

No, I don’t. Talking publicly of rapport de force between would-be partners that are attempting to build a common front is to me a gross or intentional fault that can cause a lot of unnecessary acrimony and be even an apple of discord that could halt the process of negotiation…even before it starts. I am sure that this unreasonable statement would have been received like a cold shower by the leaders of the l’Entente de l’Espoir. Will Ramgooolam be prepared to make amends for what may be considered as a faux-pas?  Time will tell.

The talk of the town these days is the price of commodities. The minister of finance says that food items are cheaper now than they were in 2008. Would you agree with him?

The two-digit inflation and almost indiscriminate price hike today are such that many people cannot afford to buy even the basic commodities especially food items for babies and children. This dire situation we are all experiencing is not due only to exogenous factors – increase in import and freight costs – but also to Government policy of hold-up on the Central Bank reserves and the ensuing rapid depreciation of the Mauritian rupee against the US dollar and other international currencies.  The Mauritian consumers were entitled to expect from the minister of finance the announcement of measures he would introduce to alleviate their suffering and restore their purchasing power. Instead, he chose awkwardly to have a go at Rama Sithanen, the 2008 minister of finance. This is to me playing cheap politics instead of addressing a critical issue that is playing havoc in every household.

What should be done, in your opinion to come out of this rut?

Any sensible person will tell you that to decrease the debt level, we need to reduce spending and generate wealth through economic growth. Therefore, the obvious initial action that is needed is to review the State expenditure and put on hold all unnecessary infrastructural capital projects of prestige or white elephants like the Côte d’Or Sports Complex which have cost billions of rupees, with our public coffers running dry. The more so as the worst lies ahead with the World Bank forecasting our debt level to reach 125% of GDP by 2035. A stricter discipline should be exercised in the management of our public finance, avoiding and sanctioning all wasteful and fraudulent practice, like the reckless importation of medical equipment of Pack & Blisters’ fame and specialised overvalued drugs like Molnupiravir during the pandemic and other malpractices revealed by the latest Audit and Public Accounts Committee reports. An immediate stop should be put to ministerial intervention for the award of contracts to close acquaintances, shady figures and fake companies that are out to defraud the State and fleece the population.

“If Bodha’s legitimate aspiration is quite understandable, his open kick against Ramgoolam seems to be unwarranted and could be taken as a flash of temper almost akin to Bérenger’s gaffe.”

What about the role of the private sector in all this?

The private sector should be given necessary incentives to improve our food production to enable us to reach self-sufficiency of certain foodstuffs, develop the blue economy and the digital economy, which all those in the know assert that it is the driver of innovation, competitiveness and growth and holds a huge potential for entrepreneurs and small and medium enterprises. Instead of the State spending huge amounts of money building houses for example, it should encourage the private sector to get involved in the construction of social housing. It could then subsidise part of the rent, if necessary. We need to develop a strong public-private partnership with projects, including social projects, co-funded by Government and the private sector as it is done in so many countries for construction of roads, development of port area and public utilities. These are some of the measures that, to my mind, could help us come out of what you call this rut.

Former Minister of Finance Rama Sithanen’s solution is a government of national unity under the leadership of Pravind Jugnauth. How do you react to that?

In times of crisis, resulting out of conflicts, wars or natural calamities, when things are unstable, unsettled and often dangerous, it is not unusual for governments and political parties, across the world, to set aside their differences and join forces for the common good, at least until the crisis is over. Here too, at the very early stage of the Covid-19 pandemic, and anticipating an inevitable sanitary and economic crisis, certain voices, including mine, were heard advocating a government of national unity. The prime minister turned a deaf ear to all such appeals and even blissfully ignored the helping hands then extended to him by the opposition. In the meantime, as goes the saying, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. Rama Sithanen is today, I am afraid, another voice that is crying out in the wilderness. The prime minister has not even cared, so far, to offer any response or comment to Sithanen’s plea and I would be surprised if any of the opposition political leaders showed the slightest inclination to be part of a government led by the MSM under the prime-ministership of Pravind Jugnauth, as suggested by Sithanen. My gut feeling, and what I consider more important in the circumstances, is that there would be a deep sense of frustration and even betrayal among the population as a whole if Sithanen’s solution of a government of national unity was to come about now.

On the international level, Mauritius voted by expelling Russia from the Human Rights Council. Was that a wise decision or as a tiny country we should have minded our own busines and done what is good for our country?

In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Mauritius has chosen to align itself with the Western powers, adopting the one-sided narrative of the US/NATO alliance, while the complexity of the issues involved called for cautiousness and prudence. This explains why during the Emergency Special Session on Ukraine we voted in favour of the UN General Assembly Resolution calling for Russia to be suspended from the Human Rights Council. As a peace-loving nation, we cannot condone the acts of aggression perpetrated against civilian Ukrainians and we should have worked, ‘as a tiny country’ and in our own humble capacity, with countries like India, South Africa, Egypt and Brazil for an immediate cease-fire and at the UN General Assembly abstained as did the countries I have just mentioned, on the resolution suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council.