The economic situation is dire. Our economic pundits are talking more and more of the similarities there are between our country and Sri Lanka; the municipal elections have been postponed in what many see as a severe attack on democracy; and the police are using repression to make protesters toe the line. We approached Milan Meetarbhan, constitutional lawyer and political observer, to weigh in on these issues and more…

The headlines this week have been about several arrests due to a mayor and an MP filing a plaint against some citizens who called one of them ‘gopia’. What is the purpose of another ugly wave of provisional charges?
What has happened this week is taken straight from the playbook of what the V Dem Institute has called “autocratising regimes”. When there is simmering discontent, kill it in the bud before it flares up. How do “autocratising regimes” do that? By coming down heavily on dissent in such a way that this acts as a strong deterrent to others from joining in and amplifying the movement.

Is it going to work?
No. Even if the government is borrowing from the autocrat playbook, it has not learned the lessons from past events when autocrats tried to stifle dissent.

The prime minister reacted by saying he does not know the meaning of the word ‘gopia’. A good defence or a bullet in the leg?
Pravind Jugnauth has, in the past, called those who were laughing at him in the National Assembly “gopia”! How can he say he doesn’t know what the word means? He uses words in the National Assembly even though he does not know what they mean!

Well whether he knows what the word means or not, it is not his fault that ‘l’autorité’ acted the way they did, is it?
His deliberate use of the term “l’autorité” seeks to distance himself from the actions of the police whilst in the same breath, he strongly condones what the police did and goes even further by warning potential demonstrators that they have to be worried about their Certificat de Moralité, which will show criminal convictions if they demonstrate against the government without being authorised to demonstrate. As if the arrests were not sufficient deterrent, this has to be bolstered with dire warnings about future career prospects with a tainted record.

That was addressed to a group of people demonstrating outside a temple with placards expressing their opposition to political speeches at religious functions…
The fact that that group of people were allegedly interviewed by the police is to say the least, shocking.

Pravind Jugnauth’s contention is that Former Prime Ministers Navin Ramgoolam and Paul Bérenger also made speeches at religious functions. Where were these demonstrators then?
So if you were then a kid and now that you are an adult you want to take a principled stand on the issue of politics and religion, you cannot do so because you did not say anything when you were a kid?! That is the most disingenuous reply.

These perceived acts of repression happened at the same time as the postponement of the municipal elections. Are they related?
The postponement of municipal elections once again is an own goal for the regime. First, invoking once again the pandemic to postpone municipal elections is in fact an indictment of the government for its failure, by its own admission, to manage the pandemic. Second, the credibility of government’s messaging is seriously impaired as it says on the one hand that it is safe for tourists to come here and that it expects one million of them to visit the country this year and on the other hand that the country is not even ready to hold municipal elections in five of its towns. Third, the regime is telling the whole world that whilst a country like France which was severely affected by Covid can hold two rounds of presidential elections in two weeks where nearly 49 million people are eligible to vote, the Mauritian government cannot organise elections for less than half of a million people in the country.

“whilst parliamentary groups in the opposition have to adopt working methods that ensure greater efficiency, they cannot ignore their individual mandates from the previous election. The idea of a united front against a ruling party at the next elections on a common programme is a different matter.''

But the law allows him to do that, doesn’t it?
It’s the MSM majority in the National Assembly which, in 2021, voted the law under which the government keeps postponing municipal elections. If the municipal elections are held in June 2023, this would mean that the councillors elected for a five-year term would have served for eight years. This would also mean that the MSM parliamentarians would have extended the mandate of predominantly MSM councillors by three years since l

As a lawyer would you say that the postponement of municipal elec- tions can be challenged before the courts?
The proclamation made by the president “acting in accordance with the advice of the prime minister” was done under a law adopted by parliament in 2021 which extended the term of local authorities elected for a five year term in 2015 to six years and provided that subsequently, where there is, or there is likely to be, an epidemic of a communicable disease in Mauritius and a quarantine period is in force in Mauritius, the president, acting in accordance with the advice of the prime minister, shall extend, from time to time, the life of six years by not more than one year at a time, provided that the life of the municipal or other councils shall not be extended for more than two years. The president was therefore empowered by an Act of Parliament to postpone elections until 2023. However, should the courts be asked to decide on the prime minister’s advice to the president that there is, or there is likely to be, an epidemic of a communicable disease in Mauritius, the courts may take the view that such advice was not reasonable in the circumstances. It could also be argued that the advice tendered to the president was in fact politically motivated and thus an improper use was made of the provisions of the 2021 Act; in other words that the government has used a colourable device to achieve a political goal.

But what’s the government scared of anyway? The opposition isn’t doing well either, is it?
At a time when the country is facing some of the most formidable challenges it has ever faced in its modern history, people are more concerned about what those in power can do for them and for the country rather than what the opposition is doing or can do. However, opposition parties have a major role in a parliamentary democracy if democratic institutions are allowed to function properly. They have to show that they have the policies and the people who can steer the country on to a safer course. But that will not be enough. They also have to use all political and legal means to make sure that the next elections are free, fair and credible and overseen by a trusted and independent body of persons so that if the opposition has managed to convince the people that it can do a better job, it still has a chance of winning the elections and the right to govern.

“We need competence and commitment from decision makers but also integrity, transparency and accountability. Many believe that all of these are lacking right now.''

Political observers seem to agree that only a united opposition can stand up to the current government. Do you believe that or do you think that parties can form their own alliances and try their luck?
I have no doubt that a strong working relationship between opposition parties in the National Assembly is a must. In a parliamentary democracy, robust and effective opposition can make a difference even in the face of a ruling majority which has no respect for parliamentary democracy. Having said that, I must say that the debate about a united opposition is often flawed by the assumption that whatever may have been the different policies these parties campaigned for at the last elections, once elected what they have in common is their opposition to the ruling parry and that they must therefore act as a united front. Whilst the Labour Party and the PMSD fought the last elections as an alliance and on a common platform, the MMM was their opponent at these elections. Voters who supported the LP-PMSD alliance did not support the policies of the MMM and vice versa. That the Labour Party and the PMSD work together in opposition since they were elected by the common votes of their two parties is logical and legitimate. The only logical and legitimate outcome of the official election results would have been that this alliance which secured by far the most seats amongst opposition parties should have been deemed to be the official opposition. This does not and should not prevent these two parties from working together with other parliamentary groups to enhance the effectiveness of the parliamentary opposition. We know that in 1990 the opposition decided to cross the floor and join the government whilst some of those who fought and won the 1987 elections together then found themselves on the opposition benches. Each party or alliance at an election is presumed to have a mandate from the people who voted for a specific platform. To what extent then can parties ignore, after the elections, the mandate given to them by the people and get into permutations and combinations for political expediency?

But the majority of the people of this country seem to be happy with the whole opposition working together the way they currently are, don’t they?
Coordinating parliamentary work for greater efficiency does not necessarily mean a united front. The fact that so many people want a united opposition shows the extent of the discontent with the government of the day. Whilst parliamentary groups in the opposition have to take this on board and adopt working methods that ensure greater efficiency, they cannot ignore their individual mandates from the previous election. The idea of a united front against a ruling party at the next elections on a common programme is a different matter.

“State capture by the msm has reached such dramatic proportions that a government of national unity at this juncture would be a mere smokescreen that would allow the msm to continue doing what it wants without any opposition in parliament.''

But negotiations are taking place and there even seems to be an agreement about the manifesto though not about investitures…
I am not aware either that there is an agreement among opposition parties on a common programme on which they will fight the next elections as a common front or that there has been any negotiation amongst the parliamentary parties on such a programme or that there have been any talks about investitures. What people want to know is what the opposition parties individually or collectively have to offer as alternative policies and how they will restore good governance. Only if there is a common platform and a common commitment, the rest will follow. We are not there yet, in my view. I believe that the leadership of these three groups can sincerely coordinate their action in parliament not only to hold the government on its toes but also to scrutinise and expose where necessary the failings or ulterior motives of legislation proposed by the government.

The economic situation, which seem dire, is pushing some political pundits to call for a government of unity. Do you think that would help us come out of the rut we are in?
I believe that those who are calling for a government of national unity mean well and see this as a means of ensur- ing a political truce and get the nation to focus on economic recovery. I recall that at the beginning of the pandemic, the then leader of the opposition, Arvin Boolell, suggested that there should be a joint effort by both government and opposition to address the challenge. His offer was ignored by the government. But I do not believe that there is a realistic chance of a government of national unity at this point. There is in fact an increasing polarisation in the country as allegations of corruption, mismanagement, nepotism and misuse of public funds continue to be levelled against the MSM government. The MSM has systematically and deliberately sought to make sure that its cronies run most of our institutions irrespective of what their qualifications for the job are. State capture by the MSM has reached such dramatic proportions that a government of national unity at this juncture would be a mere smokescreen that would allow the MSM to continue doing what it wants without any opposition in parliament.

All the indicators are in the red – or at least most of them – our debt to GDP is unstainable even according to the IMF, our institutions seem to be working mainly to keep the government in place and punish political opponents, our checks and balances are virtually non-existent…What can be done?
Not only are indicators in the red but also prospects look dimmer than they have been for a long time. But the government is in a state of denial as we saw again in the finance minister’s statement last week. A day after the finance minister assured the Assembly and the country that there was no foreign exchange crisis, the central bank deemed it necessary to inject $200 million on the market – an intervention described as unprecedented in the bank’s history. When asked about this flip-flop, the man who currently holds the office of prime minister says, three days after the event, that he does not know why the Bank of Mauritius, which is an independent body – as we all know for sure! – decided that it was necessary to put $200 million on the market. Not only are indicators in the red but today we are more heavily taxed than at any time over the last four decades and the Public Accounts Committee and the Director of Audit regularly report on improper or wrongful management of taxpayers’ rupees. More and more economists are alarmed at the extent to which the causes of the current major crisis in Sri Lanka are not dissimilar from what obtains here.

So what do we do?
We need competence and commitment from deci- sion makers but also integrity, transparency and account- ability. Many believe that all of these are lacking right now.