The biblical tendency to consider Mauritius as a paradise island is flawed. A lot of that is due to the counterintuitive reality imposed upon us by the elites. The gentrification of our public beaches and the disenfranchisement of the local proletariat in that regard would hardly fit into the narrative of a paradise island. 

This is no sudden realisation that we are selling off our beaches to promoters willing to profit from the natural beauty of the island. It is the realisation that the Pavlovian response to the issue is not good enough anymore. It would be far too simple to hide behind our inhibitions while we are given the excuse that hotel promoters create employment and contribute to economic development. 

It is not an easy task to protest against the creation of employment in this current form but it is the right thing to do. The problematic nature of explaining this to Showkutally Soodhun, minister of housing and lands, is comprehensible. He has been the face of the government on that issue, which is unfortunate in itself. With his own allies in parliament considering him as the court jester – Ravi Rutnah might have a say in that if that was a real contest – he is unlikely to understand that there are some things we are not willing to sacrifice to the whims and caprices of economic development. Maybe a leaked communiqué will do the trick?

It might also be relevant to consider whether there is more demand for employment in the hospitality industry and whether a greater supply of hotel rooms is required at this point in time. According to Statistics Mauritius, there are currently 109 licensed hotels in Mauritius with a room occupancy rate of 79% for the first quarter of 2017. The rate was of 73% for the whole of 2016. It means that more than a fifth of hotel rooms in the island is usually vacant and we still remain greedy for more. That is without even considering the hundreds of villas up for rent on the coast. 

In a country plagued by political uncertainty and a growing social class divide, it would seem to be a rather senseless decision by the authorities to preserve the image that Mauritius is divided into two. One Mauritius for the wealthy, for those who can afford to go to any beach in the island. It is the same Mauritius that will be used in promotional advertising to attract tourists here. Then there is the other Mauritius, where people are piled on top of each other and are told that they can’t venture outside the boundaries set for them in their own country.  

It is also unfair to dismiss this issue by claiming that protests against beach-hogging promoters breed isolationist tendencies. It is the exact opposite. The point is for everyone, not just the lucky few, to be able to enjoy what makes Mauritius a safe haven in this conceited world.