If there is anything that characterises the current government, it’s a growing intolerance of criticism. Journalists from l’express and Top FM being banished from Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth’s press conferences is not quite the dramatic departure it’s made out to be. As finance minister in May 2010, Jugnauth announced a similar excommunication against journalists from l’express and 5-plus.

All governments in democracies want to control the press. In dictatorships they don’t dream of that because they already do. It’s not the spirit that’s different; it’s the means. Until now, the main strategy used by governments to cut down the press has been economic pressure. This was a strategy pioneered by the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM) who, in 1984, came up with a law mandating that all owners of newspapers and magazines would have to furnish a (then princely sum) Rs500,000 guarantee to stay in business. The idea was to thin the press herd the government deemed was predominantly sympathetic to the opposition. The (now defunct) Mauritius Union of Journalists estimated that this would lead to the closing down of 20 newspapers, throwing 500 media and print workers into the street.  Journalists protested and 43 were arrested. All the government did was lower the guarantee required from Rs500,000 to Rs250,000. Other parties picked up this cue: after 2010, the Labour Party in power too undertook an advertising boycott of newspapers they did not like. Till then, the predominant idea was that by attacking the press in its pocket, the government would be able to bring them to heel. And press groups adapted by diversifying their sources of revenue to reduce their dependence on government advertising.

What makes this period so dangerous for press freedom is that the government is resorting to tactics that few press groups can resist. Jugnauth’s excommunications from his press conferences are actually the thin end of the wedge. The government has sought to tighten the scope of lawful criticism by an additional three-pronged strategy: the first is online by amending the ICT Act in 2018 to clamp down on criticism online. The most notable victims so far being a secretary to an ex-president and an ex-ambassador of the country for sharing jokes about the prime minister.  Between June 2016 and June 2019, Google reported that the Mauritian government had asked it to take down no less than 20 web pages, 13 because they were critical of the government, six because government officials felt “defamed” and only one that involved an actual legal issue, in this case copyright infringement.

The second is through the courts and institutions. The Independent Broadcasting Authority has gone on an offensive against Top FM while at the same time the prime minister is suing it for Rs500 million for coverage the government did not like in the run-up to the 2019 election. Both are designed to send a chill through other press groups.

And the third prong is through attempting to create an alternative ‘good’ (in this case pro-government) press as opposed to a ‘bad’ (critical) press. Most notably in 2018, when the government licenced two new pro-government radio stations – to supplement the MBC – one of whom, Planet FM swiftly collapsed thereafter due to internal discord. This creation of a ‘pet press’ ensures that concerted action by the press as a profession, even in the defence of civil liberties, as happened in 1984, will never happen again.

This is way beyond economic pressure. This is something new that the press, if it is to remain critical, will have to adapt to.