Mauritius is increasingly becoming a politically disoriented country. The proof: no political party is genuinely popular. They cannot attract the masses anymore, so come election time, each hopes that it will prove to be less weak than its rival. If they cannot defeat their rivals, they try to get the courts to do their job for them: MedPoint, Roches Noires etc. Victory means not getting the masses to follow you, but trying out alliance combinations that would skew the election arithmetic in your favour.

The question is why has Mauritius become so incapable of throwing up politicians capable of generating enthusiasm? The reasons, broadly speaking, are twofold. The first is that like the rest of the world, the techno-managerial form of politics is collapsing in Mauritius.  Politicians don’t compete on the plane of ideas; rather they compete on who can better manage capitalism. Ideology was deemed to be dead. So when all that came out of it was increased inequality and economic insecurity, all the bland politicians could offer was either more welfare systems for the very poor or more job creation through economic growth. This does nothing for those in the middle class who don’t need welfare or have jobs, but no job security. So they increasingly turn away from the traditional parties and to other, more radical, ideologies. This would not have been a problem, except that the rise of smartphones and social media has meant that ideology in politics has returned in a big way. The masses are attracted to ideology not dry technocracy (particularly when its promises remain unfulfilled). So just like the rise of newspapers birthed mass politics in the 20^th century, smartphones are birthing new ideologies and ‘populism’ today.

This poses particular problems for Mauritius and its politicians. Since for most of its history Mauritius was an economic extension of Europe (tourism, sugar, textiles exports), Mauritian politicians felt they did not need to craft their own ideologies. They could simply borrow inclusive political ideologies from abroad, a little welfare state here, a little Fabianism there, a few Trotskyites here, a few more Maoists there. This time round, however, there are no inclusive political ideologies to borrow anymore. Communism has collapsed. The welfare state is coming apart. As other countries turn to exclusivist nationalist or religious ideologies, this puts Mauritian political parties in a tough bind. They cannot become nationalists like the US and Europe because the ethnic cleavages within Mauritius run too deep to formulate a coherent nationalist ideology.

Nor can they turn to religion or the past: Turkey wants to become Ottoman again. India wants to return to a hoary Hindu past. China is retooling Confucianism. Mauritius, being a creation of empire has no such historical hinterland to turn to craft a political ideology. And even if it did, its religious figures and organisations are too compromised by their close association with traditional political parties to stand as alternatives. Nor indeed could they hope for victory in a country where elections are decided by the skill by which multi-ethnic coalitions are stitched together. For the first time, the outside world can offer no political lessons for Mauritian politics.

Nor can the old historic-state bourgeoisie divide sustain politics anymore. The historic bourgeoisie in the era of trade agreements and guaranteed markets was not so dependent upon the Mauritian state and so could make its weight felt politically. Now, however, they are dependent upon governments for licences, tax breaks, electricity contracts, building roads to their construction sites. They are too compromised by their proximity to politics to pose a serious political alternative. Their money means that politicians too don’t see them as enemies anymore. And so, what’s left? The state bourgeoisie turning in on itself as each party points to businessmen (-and women) fattened up by their political rivals. Hence the tabloid-variety of politics on offer today.  Politics is now going into elections hoping that voters will notice the mote in your enemies’ eye, while ignoring the beam in your own. There is little more to offer.