But there will be always some elements, especially our leftist friends -(who explore the present issue of the censorship of the Cardinal Christmas message from a totally different and more objective perspective, in the sense that the tussle between the alternative worlds of politics and the religious is a vestige of colonialism that we have not dared to change)- will find some features of the message as quite partisan and limited for a population hungry for new ways to empower themselves…..
What about our model of development, the lopsided structure of the Mauritian economy with its corporate behemoths having extensive control over key assets of the country and financial resources amid widening inequality?
What about the ease with which the private sector is securing the EIA certificates, corporates obtaining government support to save the capital of their shareholders and the profitability of the banks without any serious commitment on tackling the increasingly grim employment and livelihood situations of the working people – workers, small businesses, planters and those forced into self-employment – which is the root cause of the present distress?
What about a private sector that continuously lobbies for the short term policy of rupee depreciation and the import of foreign labour rather than investing massively in enhancing productivity and skills development that will go a long way in moving the country into the next phase of its developmental effort and transforming the economy ?
What about the series of smart cities that are affecting the environment jeopardising our future growth rates and impacting on the livelihoods of our fishermen?
They could go on and on….They would like also to hear about these, otherwise it will be mere hypocrisy!
Similarly, the recent interview to the Global Leadership Foundation of our ex-President strikes a slightly jarring note when he refers to the relevance of “religious” beliefs , rather than humanist ones, in political decision-making.
By and large, Religion and Humanism are expressions of the perpetual philosophical quest for our existential meaning and purpose on earth. Humanism draws from the universality, compassion, tolerance and equality of all the main religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. But, religious and humanist beliefs can sometimes conflict, and history is replete of examples where equity, truth and justice suffer at the hands of religious orthodoxy, especially in multi-cultural societies, but even in less diverse ones.
Sadly, this extremist trend is catching hold globally, where increasingly authoritarian Governments are trying to victimize minorities. Religious or racial identity is often a driving force behind such extremism.
It is therefore important that our acknowledged leaders and ex-Presidents should consider it a fundamental responsibility to distinguish between being religious and humanist. Even without holding religious identity and beliefs, one can still be honest, moral, and ethical, and act in the best interests of our fellow humans. It cannot be denied that certain outdated religious attitudes also often harbor intolerance and discrimination towards other religious minorities. Some of our religious leaders and heads of socio-cultural organisations are openly foraging in the political arena for personal and tribal spoils.
Our young people should instead be encouraged to pursue a distinguished career in public life, like some of our distinguished leaders, and serve the public interest. Including the interests of their community, faith or religion. But they should pay allegiance, first and foremost, to the public interest, in recognition of the overriding humanist precept.
The answer to the ex-President’s interview - he could not accept “giving an unfettered right to foreign nations and organisations to decide on our behalf who was a terrorist”-is that it is a matter of conscience, not of religion. To ensure that our young and aspiring politicians are well- guided, our leaders should assert clearly and unambiguously that when matters of religion and state conflict in public life, decisions should always be taken on a secular and not a religious basis.
Indeed, we have to be very careful when treading on this sensitive territory which is replete with widespread intolerance and prejudices. In our special Mauritian context where politics and religion have become strange bedfellows and where the different religious groups and sects compete against each other not only for the State and the Private Sector’s resources for “nou bann” ( CSR money for e.g) but also for new adherents or converts, our central challenge is the challenge of accommodating the different religious groups, identities and cultures in our national dream of Mauritianism.
As I commented earlier “Such humanist ethos -inclusionist, flexible, agglomerative- can help us to achieve our own unique version of the much-desired Mauritianism. Unfortunately, presently most of the religious groups are still abiding mainly to the doctrine of uniformity rather than accommodation. Until we have seen a progressive evolution from our presently hopeless multiculturalism to more of cross-cultural and inter-cultural communications, exchanges and activities, it’s preferable that the particularist fanaticism of the different religious groups, with any distinction whatsoever, be kept away from politics.
Without an open and constructive exchange to address our prejudices and narrow-mindedness, and in the absence of meaningful reforms for offering truly equal opportunities to every citizen, it is easier to take refuge in the realm of identities and support group vested interests, rather than consider alternative ideas, plans and actions to ensure greater justice and equality for all. But we should not give up hope for the battle of a genuine “laic” and inter-cultural Mauritius.”
