In the last edition of this newspaper, the
topic of the day – “MAAS: Solidarity or Greed?; The Land Imbroglio; Sugar
Industry: Sectoral interests v/s national interest; Land Monopoly; and 50% in
the sugar industry” -- has spread all over the place marginalizing to some
extent the equally emotionally loaded subject “De la femme coolie a la femme
de tête” of the talented Shakuntala
Boolell. Surprisingly a related issue -- the successful historical mobilization
of Creoles by the Federation des Creoles Mauriciens, led by Père Jocelyn
Grégoire -- was blatantly ignored, but these seemingly unrelated developments
have a common thread.
Before we connect these events, let us first of
all try to situate these historical turning points. I acknowledge that societal
relations and social psychology or pathology are not my forte and beg to be
excused for the paucity of landmarks events to drive my reasoning. Thus to
advance and substantiate some of the arguments, I will borrow extensively from
this undisputed short masterpiece “Mauritius: A case study on social
integration from a human development perspective”, by
R.Bheenick, E. Hanoomanjee and V.Nababsing.
It had to happen; it was the natural
consequence of the dialectical evolution of historical forces leading to changes in productive forces and the social and technical relations of production. A certain Mr Tengur was just an instrument of this movement; those
people that had turned Tengur into a national hero and were jubilating about
his success in removing one of bastions of the till-now unquestioned,
entrenched rights and privileges, that our society/institutions/structures were
replete with, were claiming victory too soon. He had only opened the Pandora’s
box of consensual rights and privileges that would not have stood out anyway to
the test of time. There were to be other heroes in the making, and it was only
a question of time before the cozy consensus that the Mauritian political and
economic elites have struggled for decades to maintain, goes bust.
Why now ? Why is it that it is at the cusp of
this millennium that we are witnessing such upheavals, such confrontational
attitudes and compartmentalization of our society? What has gone wrong with the
Mauritius that has been hailed as a “miracle
de la coexistence pacifique”?
It would be useful to properly discern the turn
of events to have recourse to the
parchments and sediments of history such that we can unearth the subtleties of
the social and economic pact that were to determine the future course of events
-- our economic and social development -- at the time we opted to have a tryst
with our destiny.
R.Bheenick, E. Hanoomanjee and V.Nababsing had
noted in their case study the following:
“A more radical economic and policy stance designed to right past wrongs
and give equality of opportunity to the previously under-privileged, but
newly-empowered, racial and ethnic groups could have conceivably led to better
short-term results on this front but it would almost certainly have undermined
enterprise and confidence, without which any short-term social gains would have
proved unsustainable as they would have been rapidly dissipated for the economy
would in all likelihood have failed to deliver the economic growth and
job-creation performance that have transformed the once sleepy sugar island
into a dynamic and diversified economic machine.”
They also drew attention
to the fact that “Upward
mobility in the economic arena has resulted in the surrender of some of some of
the commanding heights of the economy by the Franco-Mauritian group, which
ruled supreme on the sugar sector because of its ownership of the sugar estates
and factories to a class of new
entrepreneurs of diverse ethnic origins who found entry into new sectors like
tourism and export manufacturing easier since they were playing on a more level
playing field.”
The pact or social
contract had a familiar flavor -- a typical neo-colonial after taste: “The asset and
consumption transfers in favour of the weaker sections of the population have
been a policy constant. Given that the Franco-Mauritians power elite could strike a coalition of
interest with the large number of Indo-Mauritian small holders (the powerbroker
of the Indo-Mauritian political parties) to pre-empt any physical asset
redistribution via land reform.”
What is it that has changed now that we cannot
prosper along the same lines? Surely globalisation has something to do with
this now that we all live in one world. The world is facing unprecedented jobs
crisis of mammoth proportions; this is posing a threat to the security of nations
as the world is becoming more fragmented and confrontational. The jobs crisis
is visible on the streets of the rich as well as poor countries. Not having
decent work affects the dignity, self-worth and stability of many Mauritian
families
Thomas L. Friedman in his 1999 book, ‘The
Lexus and the Olive Tree’, is on the same track. He argues that
globalisation is in the process of creating a “winner take-all” world in which
the winners grab the whole of the market, leaving the rest of us to squabble
over the crumbs. On the social side, Polish sociologist Zygmunt Baumann's
analysis of globalisation in his book ‘Globalisation: The human
consequences’, propounds the thesis that globalisation is spawning a new
social stratification in which wealth and liberty are global, while poverty and
constraints are local. Baumann maintains that globalisation will transform the
traditional nation-state into a night watchman whose main and only task in the
new era will be one of policing. And about inequality, Robert Reich in his
widely noted work ‘The Work of Nations’, tells us “a small, exclusive
group travels by express elevator to the economic top, while the rest,
lumpenproletariat or permanently unemployed plunge to the dungeons.”
With so much insecurity around, resentment will
express itself much more readily – a will to resist if possible the global
threat to local jobs and, if this is not possible, to find alternative jobs for
the unskilled. Some years ago, those who had been made redundant could fairly
quickly find a new job. People moved from the rural areas into the towns, where
new jobs became available as industrialization spread. Today, however, when a
factory in one of the traditional core industries is closed, those losing their
jobs cannot simply take up work in the information technology sector.
Redundancy today brings a much harder blow. No longer is there any will to
invest in people. Workers have become disposable items.
Today given that the rents generated by trade
preferences are disappearing fast, the socio-economic model that has served us
so well in the past, while artificially sheltering an uncompetitive domestic
economy, is no longer suitable to move us from dependence on trade preferences
to open competition in the global economy.
As a small island economy heavily dependent on
sugar and textiles, Mauritius is among the most vulnerable countries in the
world to current changes in the world trade regime. In this new setting of the
global village, it seems more like global pillage. The new class of entrepreneurs
are seeing their field of actions thinning down to a few export possibilities à
la Sarjua. In the tourism sector,
the big corporations are leaving little space for others -- even the
politically backed Bunjuns found it hard to survive. In the EPZ sector, the
main barrier to entry is now the huge cost of capital to finance the completely
vertically integrated computerized units like the CMT that employ mostly
relatively more skilled foreigners.
Now the pact no longer stands. While the sugar
barons and Franco-Mauritians in the hospitality sector are embracing the
conglomerates -- a private sector that has tended to float above society,
unmoored from the problems of the average citizen -- the -ruling economic and
political elites were reduced to mere spectators in the whole process of
greater integration into the global economy, which promised much but has
brought them little. They have been told that opportunities were there for the
taking for all but they see that there are only crumbs left. So others must be having
a too sizeable share-of the cake. Even a redistribution of the cake through a
progressive regime of taxation is not within the realm of possible alternatives
as it will affect the country’s allure as a destination for foreign investment.
The rebellion is in a sense against globalisation that apportions risks to those able to bear it the least and tolerates
grotesque disparities in the distribution of the benefits. Thus R.Bheenick, E.
Hanoomanjee and V.Nababsing stated in their case study the following:
“In a situation of unequal initial
ownership conditions and unequal purchasing power, market forces have proved a
relative failure to re-equilibrate the skewed patterns of ownership of some critical
assets. Differential cultural norms and attitudes to acquisition and ownership
of property (the negative attitude towards risk) and the differential savings
behavior across the various ethnic groups have also contributed to this market
failure.”
What is needed is a fairer distribution of the
fruits of globalization. But the State can no longer play this role and at the
same time continue to be a pillar to the ruling economic and political elites –
part of the erstwhile economic and social pact. Globalisation will not allow a
state which is hypertrophic, a monster complex on top of society, heavy and
corrupt. It cannot continue to be the great contractor, the great buyer, the
great provider, the great receiver. It cannot afford to continue subsidizing
its rich economic and social elites. In the education sector, it can no longer
provide the funds to boost an elitist system -- from the pre-primary to tertiary level -- that
consolidates the power of the rich and middle class. With the free health system
it is struggling to provide quality services to all and at the same time be
servile to the elite- the connected, the powerful, the relatives of so
and so who always have a way to skirt
the bureaucracy. So should we be surprised that instead of anti-globalisers we
have a virulent democratisation campaign!!!
The ruling elitehave also adapted to the
dictates of globalisation and are prepared to cope with a diversity of the new
situations of risk while jettisoning the previous all-powerful state apparatus.
As long as they can havea fairer share of the cake and can review the earlier
pact to their advantage, they are prepared to go all along for the
restructuring of the State and Government to make them more democratic and
accountable ,lean and less interventionist.
What about the Afro-Creoles in all this?
Mauritius has witnessed a “re-ordering of social-structural relations
arising from greater equality of economic opportunity” but still some
continue to cling to the sufferance of the exclusion syndrome. In la question creole, J.C-G quotes the sociologue Sheila
Bunwaree : “Le modèle mauricien
de paix et d’harmonie ne traite pas tous
les Mauriciens en égaux. L’arc-en-ciel de Maurice marginalise les défavorisés
historiques que sont les Créoles. »
For years the Creoles have not
bothered for government jobs, you found few of them queuing up for ministerial
favours for there were enough of jobs for them in the construction, fishing,
plumbing, and other semi-skilled activities. But now with globalisation, their
lot is one of shocking inhumane conditions. This harsh reality has lain bare to
them that it is only by creating and recreating
their self identity on a more active basis than before that they will be able
to forge ahead as one community and elbow
their way up the economic and social ladder.
Père Gegoire has given the Creoles a
new purpose; he has invented a new role for them and knows how to channel part
of their current frustration. The anger and alienation may be traceable to the years of “dynamic
tensions around the formation of a Creole identity and the search for its legitimacy
mediated its own anxiety and the denial of its detractors” (The Cultural
Politics of Sugar - Keith A.Sandiford). He has the merit of not falling
into simplistic paranoia -- a tendency to blame everyone but themselves for
their troubles, to believe that other communities are against them and that the
whole system is totally unfair, they see others as being responsible for their
problems, it’s never their fault. He is not satisfied in positioning them as
mere victims; they will have to come up from their wretchedness on their own. Years of insecurity drove the Afro-Creoles away from the very forces --
education, savings, etc -- that would have helped them cope with the changing
world. Now at last, in the wake of a new wave of insecurity, Père Gregoire is
emphasizing the need for education. He did however point out the root causes of
the injustices: alienation, humiliation and disempowerment caused by the
absence of opportunities. They will have to be given the opportunities; it is
not charity, it is their due rights. Reservation in employment is not the
answer to Afro-Creoles’ backwardness; it may benefit a small creamy layer, but
it may cause a further widening of the gulf between communities.
Afro-Creoles must stand on their
own; many are doing so right now. With positive discrimination, the public will
view them as backdoor entries. It is yet another road to stagnation and decay. The example of
dalits and tribals in India is too obvious. But better access to education is
not enough. They should be seen as partners and entrepreneurs not as bullies
and enemies. Economic barriers are the most significant that prevent
individuals from realizing their full potential. Any new pact that the new
economic and social configuration demand will have to include the Afro-Creoles, ensuring that they
get their fair share of the land
redistribution or democratisation programme (why is the VRS (with a plot of
land) for planters only not for fishermen, textile workers, and other displaced
workers?). Whatever the “intelligent use of the land, the sharing of the
benefits… for the benefit of all” as MR pointed out last week, it should
not bypass any community this time. Without the incendiary rhetoric that is
becoming so strident in some quarters, Père Gregoire’s message is also
addressed to the non-Creoles in the same vein that the ruling elite are addressing
the sugar barons on democratisation. In an environment of virtual jobless
growth and where the social fabric is being undermined, goodwill and
understanding from the other communities is necessary to help the Afro-Creoles
in their struggle for a place of honour in the Mauritian sun.
But we must be wise enough to see through the
gimmicks played by the politicians. It is disgusting that these worthies view
us as so easily amenable to emotional lollipops. But I still have certain
doubts of my own; the erstwhile coalition of interests may still hold and that
they are merely playing to the gallery and very soon they will accommodate the
new breed of entrepreneurs sponsored by the State (à la Mahatir’s Bumiputra,
son of the soil, policy to fight it out with the Malaysian Chinese and Indian
entrepreneurial entrenched elite) who
want to play it big now . And we will end up being le dindon de la farce.
Though we are aware for the need of a
new rapport de force-a new set of rules for the new set of players- the demand
for greater sharing of the benefits will
have to be packaged in more convinvcing and less emotional terms. The the arguments of one the frontliners in this demand that “les
Mauriciens sont deja en train de payer leur part…en reglant leur factures
d’électricite,…officialiser cet actionariat a travers la MAAS »lacks
economic rationale. It
can easily be refuted that , we should be all asking for our due share from
Mauritius Telecom (for overcharging us for so many years) and STC) and Air
Mauritius (for its years of monopoly profits). Our case has to be made, to
repeat the lead article of last week, on
the urgent need for an intelligent use of land ( not for scandalous IRS types)
to first of all eradicate, once for all, the few remanining pockets of poverty,
lessen the burden of unemployment and then realise our vision of
a knowledge economy and a regional Centre of Excellence.(Tertiary
eduction,distance education,hospitality sector training, agricultural biotechnology, medical hubs,etc.). For these we need land , not for cronies.
