A casualty of the Mohamed-Bhadain burlesque show on Radio Plus, that was followed by negative comments on social media, is “frank and open debates”. We have moved from one extreme to another.
The recent Radio Plus programme 'Au Cœur de l’Info’, on the causes of the inflationary situation in the country, having as participants, an ex-Finance Minister and two potential ones- Rama Sithanen, Eric Ng and Vinaye Ancharaz - turned out to be a mild consensual show despite the valid points raised by Vinaye and Eric.
Everyone was trying to be civil and respectful to each other’s views , more keen to be seen as being accommodative and not like the arrogant blokes mentioned above. But we paid a price for this forced consensus; we sacrificed some substance and more of informed debate as our participants did not dare to tread off the beaten tracks which could have added some weights to their views though. It was more of “as Eric is saying”,….”as rightly put by Rama”….rather than dissenting and no holds-barred views without being on the extreme fringe.
It was a forced consensus that killed a real debate ,not helped by the two useless hosts-cum-journalus that didn’t care to lift the rather cordial discussions above public theatrics and delve deeper on some of the issues raised. ( One talented commentator recently broached this issue, “instead of our useless zourlanus and radios continually asking stupid and quite irrelevant questions from our politicians, why don't they ask them to tell us exactly what they will do to drastically reduce our horrendous national deficit? Where is the vision of an island at ease with itself and realistically coming to terms with the many problems it faces? Not one politician has proposed specific and realistic measures ……”.)
Indeed, to stay the course about the whole discussion on the present surge in inflation , we could have had a different feel and flavour of our participants’ views on such issues as targeting and taxation , helicopter money,x-s liquidity and inflation and to the alternatives to reviewing the fuel tax structure without impacting on the budget deficit and public debt, or even on the intervention of MIC not only to protect producers but also to provide meaningful relief to consumers by helping to replenish the Price Stabilisation Account .
In an effort for a more lively, nuanced but a civilised debate , they could have , for example , queried our ex-Minister of Finance , who is now affirming so confidently that “l’inflation n’est pas transitoire “, about his previous advice to government to opt for helicopter money while minimising the impact of such CB money financing on prices and the prodigal ways of this government.
To attach more responsibility to these politicians, who are allowed to peddle all kinds of contradictory statements that they do not even have the decency to adapt to emerging fact, we should not let them off the hook so easily. Do you recall that at the time of Budget 2021/22, we were arguing that Govt will have to make hard choices, or else invite another Moody’s downgrade, which could further aggravate uncertainties, heighten risks, and undermine confidence with far reaching economic and social consequences ! Our ex-Minister of Finance was then asserting that Payadachy has enough of ‘marge de manoeuvre" . They could have queried him on that !
Our ex-Minister shrewdly avoided a debate and a commitment on the targeting issue, pretending to broaden it by including the lower middle class . Why ? Because , with the exception of our useless duo at Radio Minus, everybody knows about his opposition to the "targeting" of pension reform proposed by the 2001-2005 regime. He is today an ardent proponent of pension reform whereas he was championing a hefty populist increase in basic retirement pension in the 2019 Labour electoral Manifesto, despite its clear unaffordability.
Our useless duo was brought to reality of hard facts when one caller , bringing some punch to the discussions , tackled our ex-Finance Minister on his tax-reform and tax centric policies which had led the IMF in Art IV 2013 to recommend revenue raising measures to better balance the budget.
Again, they could have questioned him ,if they were aware, on the fact that the reduction in direct taxes was unaccompanied by efforts to reduce wasteful expenditures and inefficient transfers; the fiscal consolidation efforts were plainly a case of missed opportunities in achieving the twin objectives of sound public finances and economic growth/job creation.
As you see , we live in times where spectacle is often preferred over substance, noise is mistaken as informed debate. We cannot blame our participants , our journalists and radios have to move up a notch if we do not want to have to face shrinking spaces in our society for meaningful dialogue and debates. Otherwise, Chatwaland will prevail.
