Social activist and democracy scholar, Dr Roukaya Kasenally challenges the idea of our country as an example to be emulated on the African continent. She opines that citizens should be able to shake off their «political inertia»...

On the 3rd May, the annual World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) was celebrated in Ethiopia. This speaks volumes about a country that until recently was notorious for jailing journalists and having one of the most draconian laws where journalists were treated on the same footing as terrorists. The latest Reporters without Borders Report indicates that Ethiopia has seen a phenomenal jump of 40 places from (150 to 110) and this in just one year. Most observers attribute this feat to one man – the young and charismatic Prime Minister of Ethiopia – Abiy Ahmed. This demonstrates how political leadership and commitment can often unlock stagnant, authoritarian or merely slack nations.

What about Mauritius? In fact, I have been a regular commentator as an activist and scholar of what I call ‘the picture perfect Mauritian democracy’. Recent publications namely the Afrobarometer Pan African Profile Series shed interesting light on the Mauritian democratic and media landscape which to a certain extent further punctures the idea of Mauritius as a democracy to be emulated across Africa.

Political Participation: A tepid citizenry

Mauritius has been systematically classified by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as a ‘full democracy’. In its latest report entitled ‘Political Participation, Protest and Democracy’, our island is classified 17 in the top 20 of ‘full democracies’ and the only country in Africa to qualify for that status. At first sight this classification should be cause for celebration and in fact the current ruling coalition has used this classification to brag about the island’s good democratic credentials. However, upon reading the report in detail, an important element sticks out - the relatively low level of what is termed as ‘political participation’. Mauritius scores 5.56 for political participation as opposed to its overall 8.22. What the ‘political participation’ score further sheds light on is that we are well behind countries such as South Africa (8.33), Cabo Verde, Lesotho, Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Madagascar and Botswana all averaging a score of 6.7. In fact, Mauritius is at par with countries like Ethiopia and Angola which have experienced decades of entrenched authoritarianism under the regimes of Meles / Desalegn and Dos Santos.

So what does one mean by political participation? There are various aspects to political participation - voters’ turnout, participation in protest rallies, willingness to speak out in public, formally adhering to a political party as part of its membership base, making use of civil society protest tools such as launching or being part of a petition. Obviously the presence and rise of social media has to a great extent accelerated the methods and manner for political engagement.

There were a number of questions that were asked during the Mauritius Afrobarometer Round 7 that sheds light on what may be interpreted as an unwillingness to be politically active or engaged as citizens. In fact, we know that Mauritians go out to vote in large numbers as indicated by the high voting turnouts for all of the ten post independent elections - averaging between 75 to 80 %. However, it is between elections that political or citizenry inertia sets in and there is a need to understand why this happens on such a large scale. One of the reasons that has been given is that there is a general climate of fear in speaking out openly as this can cause retaliation from those in power. Well this ‘fear’ is translated in what the Afrobarometer paper on ‘Are Africans’ Freedom Slipping Away?’ refers to as ‘caution in exercising rights’. In fact, 73 % of Mauritian respondents said that they ‘are careful what they say about politics’ whilst 71 % were ‘careful about which organisations they join and finally 71 % mentioned that they are ‘careful how they vote’. It seems that there is a sort of disconnect between the manner in which Mauritius is ‘marketed’ as a democracy and the way it is understood and practised by its citizens. The opinion pertaining to ‘careful how they vote’ is a matter of some concern as the Mauritian democratic model prides itself on the ability to guarantee the secrecy of the vote and we are all aware of the rigour in which elections are run by the Mauritius Electoral Office. No doubt, there is the need to drill deeper into the perception of the caution when exercising their vote among Mauritians. Comparing Mauritius to the rest of Africa, one notes that we fall well below a number of countries such as Madagascar, Namibia, Botswana, Sierra Leone, Malawi and Mozambique where respondents were open when it came to exercising their rights. And yet, Mauritius tops the classification for Africa when it comes to political rights and civil liberties - 1 and 2 respectively as per the Freedom House Index 2018 and is ranked fifth in Africa for political participation and first when it comes to rights as per the Mo Ibrahim Governance Index 2018.

Another interesting set of questions from the Afrobarometer Round 7 assesses respondents’ perceptions when it comes to their tolerance for government limits on freedoms. This actually speaks to the support that citizens have towards freedom be it that of expression and association. In the last years, we have witnessed what can be called a rolling back on a number of fundamental rights by repressive and authoritarian governments but at the same time a number of democratically elected ones have used the excuse of reigning in unregulated, fundamentalist and fake discourses in the name of public safety. This has translated in a series of cybersecurity laws or increased methods of surveillance. In Mauritius we saw amendments brought to the Information and Communication Technologies Act (ICTA) where a person can be sentenced for posting content that can cause ‘inconvenience, distress or anxiety’. Currently we are witnessing the large scale deployment of the ‘Safe City Mauritius Project’ where some 4000 cameras are being installed across the island costing the Mauritian taxpayer billions of rupees. In fact, we keep hearing the Prime Minister gloat about this project of how safe Mauritius will become but nothing is said about data use and protection. The recent PNQ of the Leader of Opposition was an eye opener as to what extent this project is shrouded in a deep veil of opacity and secrecy.

Coming back to the set of questions concerning perceptions on freedom. It is reassuring to note that a large majority of those interviewed supported the idea of freedom with nearly two in three of them believing that ‘citizens have the right to private communications’. However, an important split appears when it comes to that of freedom of religious speech. In fact, 46% felt that the ‘government had the right to regulate religious speech’ and 45% upheld the complete freedom of religious speech. Above 1 in 2 respondents (53%) supported the idea of ‘roadblocks and curfews’ as a means of ensuring public security. What does this tell about our country? Is the popular concept of an island celebrated for its sense of conviviality, religious diversity and tolerance running thin? Are sociocultural / religious bodies overstepping on the limits expected from an island whose Constitution defines it as a secular nation?

Traditional versus Social Media

We are all aware of the role that a free and balanced media plays in the construction of a vibrant democracy. Mauritius can pride itself in having one of the longest established written media in the southern hemisphere. In the Afrobarometer Policy Paper on ‘How Free is too Free?’ a large majority of Mauritian respondents strongly support the idea that ‘the media should have the right to publish any views and ideas without government control’. The Mauritian media landscape has considerably evolved over the last decades with a number of media titles, private radio stations, online news platforms and of course the now ubiquitous social media platforms. No doubt, there is a competition for the audience’s attention and the latter now more than ever has the luxury to browse for news and information at their own leisure. So how does the audience access news? What are the most popular sources? Afrobarometer Round 7 for Mauritius point to the fact that 89% of respondents said that they access radio and 88% television on a daily basis when asked the following question - ‘How often do you get news from the following sources?’ 35% of respondents said they turn to newspapers on a daily basis, 47% mentioned the Internet and 42% social media.

So what does the above translate into? In fact, one should be aware that accessing a particular media as a source of news does not inevitably mean that you believe or trust it as a source of information. We are all aware of the heavy bias practised by the MBC in its treatment of political news and this has ‘favoured’ all ruling parties. Therefore the newsmakers at the MBC should not jubilate and believe that their daily diet of pro-government propaganda served every night during the 19.30 news bulletin is consumed unreservedly by those who tune in. What is interesting to note is the growing importance given to online sites (the Internet) and social media as sources of news and this demonstrates that audience members are migrating towards new news platforms.

A special mention must be made about Facebook which has a large following in Mauritius and as per the Internet World Statistics there were 760,000 subscribers as at December 2018. This is a massive following that is continuously growing. Therefore it is not surprising to note politicians using this platform as a means of communication and engagement. There has been a recent call by the former Prime Minister and current leader of the Mauritius Labour Party (MLP) - Navin Ramgoolam on his official Facebook account following the party’s 1st May political rally to send through ideas, proposals and other suggestions that will be used in elaborating the party’s electoral manifesto. So what should we make of this new form of political communication? Is it genuine? Will it really factor in the citizens’ voice? Or is it just bluff? In fact, social media is a popular tool used during elections and political leaders have deployed creative ways of getting their words across. The latest example comes from India where a combination of Facebook, Whatsapp and Twitter were extensively used by Narendra Modi to reconquer power. Obviously there is also a very dark and disquieting side to social media as the trigger of hate speech and fake news.

Well, the real litmus test will be the quality of the engagement and the ability to create a new ecosystem of ideas that is citizen driven and where the latter learns how to get those who are supposed to represent them to speak truth to power. As Mauritius prepares itself for what seems to be an election year let us hope that citizens will be able to shake off their political inertia, that the media will set the tone of the conversation and that politicians will honour us with honest and constructive ideas. In fact, this would be an indication that we are living in thriving democracy.