[Blog] End of Year Report on the Alliance of Change

The saga unfolded like a soap opera with various possible endings. Would he leave or stay? Ultimately, he chose to remain until the next break, maintaining suspense to the last moment, akin to the style of Alfred Hitchcock himself. This serves as a preamble to the core topic: a review of the first year of the Alliance of Change, analyzing successes and failures, what could and should have been done, and outlining a hopeful path forward.

After the disastrous tenure of the previous government, the only way for the new administration was up. The glitz of the pre-election campaign suggested that everything had been meticulously planned with plenty of promises for the future of all Mauritians. The population's frustrations during the previous decade indicated their readiness for change, and the numerous pledges in the Alliance's manifesto clearly indicated that the odds were in their favor. The race had effectively been won before it even began.

Despite appointing a team of chosen advisors, their deficiencies have been glaring. The biggest blunder was the decision to raise the pension age from 60 to 65 without consulting the public beforehand.

A year later, the end-of-term report is filled with missed chances and numerous mistakes. We can only hope that the second year does not repeat the same pattern; otherwise, the future will look bleak by the end of their five-year term. I aim to be a realist rather than a harbinger of doom, observing the future without illusions.

Let’s start from the beginning: it all commenced with the best intentions, undeniably paired with an elaborate blueprint, but ultimately, the outcome was not the explosive success anticipated; rather, it fizzled out.

First, the appointment committee, part of the manifesto, still hasn’t seen the light of day. Surely, it cannot be that difficult to implement. It is not about being wise after the fact. Instead, the strategy adopted allowed major appointments to be left to the whims of individual ministers, rather than establishing a clear and comprehensive procedure for all to adhere to. Many were appointed based on past reputations or as recognition for services rendered during the elections, which was fair, provided they had the relevant qualifications. All appointments should initially be for a year, renewable, contingent on satisfactory performance and an external review. Individuals with inflated egos should be excluded from the outset, as they tend to believe they alone possess all the knowledge.

Second, the government's major failing has been the method and quality of their communication. Despite the array of chosen advisors, their shortcomings were evident. A significant error was the decision to raise the pension age without public consultation. Given the precarious state of the economy following the previous government's disastrous tenure, urgent and significant measures were necessary to halt the decline. One such measure was raising the retirement age, a policy already adopted by many countries for economic reasons. Countries such as Japan, the United States, Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have raised their retirement ages to 67, so we cannot pretend we can do differently for a non-contributory pension. Continuing as before would be tantamount to living in a fantasy world, believing the country can sustain such a heavy financial burden without major reforms.

The government was correct in its approach, but the preparation and execution of such a consequential measure were inadequate across the board. Hopefully, lessons have been learned for the future. Sharing information is crucial for two major reasons:

1. It is essential for democratic participation, accountability, and public trust, empowering citizens to hold the government accountable, reducing corruption, and ensuring transparency.
2. The public is more likely to accept critical decisions when they are informed and consulted, even if those decisions contradict their personal beliefs. This phenomenon is known as Authority Bias.

A newspaper recently published an end-of-year report on all ministers, which I will not detail here, except to say it was largely accurate. If only most could follow the example of the Attorney General, who consistently goes to great lengths to explain any proposed legislation. This approach allows the public time to review proposals and accept them more readily as they can express their concerns. It would be wise for individual ministers to explain why certain measures are taking longer to process and adopt. For instance, we have been waiting for a Freedom of Information Act for a very long time, yet the minister in charge has remained silent. Knowing the reasons for delays would ease public anxiety and provide updates on progress. This legislation was supposed to be a top priority, yet there is a deafening silence on the matter. For too long, the public has been kept in the dark by politicians claiming that certain information is privileged and cannot be disclosed. The public has an undeniable right to be informed at all times.

In conclusion, there are lessons to be learned, and hopefully, the government will adopt a different approach with the well-being of the populace as the priority, establishing better communication and information sharing. (A New Year’s resolution). Here ends the lesson.