‘Undecided’ voters: “Its’s fear of retribution that explains the large chunk of the electorate that claims to be undecided”

Interview: Touria Prayag

* ‘Checks and balances within a system only work when we have honest, honourable people who respect the rules of democracy’

* ‘Every journalist still fighting today for a better tomorrow for every Mauritian is doing it at the expense of their families’ well-being’

As the former Editor-in-Chief of Weekly magazine and the author of two books — Provisional Charges: the Untold Human Stories and #BLD: When Mauritius Lost its Bedside Manners — Touria Prayag has consistently engaged with pressing social and political issues. In this candid interview with Mauritius Times, she reflects on her journey through the media landscape, her approach to critical journalism, and her views on the current political climate. With an emphasis on meritocracy and a staunch defence of independent reporting, Touria Prayag offers insights into the necessity of integrity in journalism and the vital role it plays in fostering a democratic society. What follows are her thoughts on the evolving dynamics of politics and the challenges facing media professionals today, highlighting the importance of courage and resilience in the pursuit of truth and justice.

Mauritius Times: We haven’t had the opportunity to read you for some time now. Could you explain the reasons behind this absence?

Touria Prayag: I am grateful that you and other readers still recall my writings and miss them.

Let’s say that a page has been turned on another chapter in my career and I have embarked on new projects. Weekly is now being run by younger and perhaps more able colleagues.

* But you have been very silent about it, haven’t you?

You know, when you leave a position that you have occupied for so many years, there are various ways of reacting.

You can choose to do what one of our ex-colleagues has been doing: devote the rest of your life to criticising all the journalists who have been doing their job since, the company they work for and any initiative taken by former colleagues. That is not my style. I have never done that.

I have occupied several positions in the past, some arguably more important than my previous role as editor in chief of Weekly, and when another chapter opened, I closed the door gently behind me and moved on, wishing my colleagues well. Naturally, there are things which could have been done differently. It saddens me that they weren’t, but that’s life. That’s just the way things are.

The best thing you can do when you are brought face to face with human nature is to take it on the chin and keep moving ahead. I am not indispensable to any organisation and, equally, there isn’t only one way for me to continue to contribute to the causes I have always believed in.

* How has your experience of editing a weekly paper been and are there any key lessons you’ve learned from this experience that you would like to share?

I don’t think of myself as a great journalist who has been to the best schools of journalism and is ready to dish out lessons.

I fell into the cauldron of journalism by accident. I was contributing my views to the local press while working in Academia. One day, Jean Claude de l’Estrac, who was then Executive Chairman of La Sentinelle, called me for a meeting and offered me the opportunity to start a new publication in English. Surprised, I told him that I was not a journalist. I will always remember his reply: « Si, mais vous ne le savez pas encore! » (You are, but you don’t know it yet!)

I decided to take up the challenge and I walked into the newsroom for the first time as editor in chief. It was really tough. We had to work on the trial issue (le numéro zéro) of what was then l’express Weekly, had to deal with the finances of the publication, the human resources, recruitment, long unsociable hours…

But we survived and found our place in the local media landscape. Until Covid hit.

* What about your experience with media freedom?

To be perfectly honest, although we were a small publication within a large media group, we enjoyed total editorial freedom throughout our existence. That has always been sacrosanct.

It was difficult for a lot of readers to understand why there were so many different points of view expressed within the same company. The answer is simple: the freedom of expression was something we lived; not something we paid lip service to. Each publication fought for the principles it believed in for as long as it believed in them.

And that is the lesson I would like to share: stand and fight for what you believe in, no matter what the price is. When you no longer can, you grab your pen and shut the door behind you. You don’t compromise on your principles. People may like you or hate you. But they will always respect you.

* Do you believe media freedom is under threat today considering the increasing reports of media outlets – both newspapers and private radio stations – adjusting their editorial stance due to government pressure on board directors, often tied to business interests?

I do not have any information to confirm a direct cause/effect relationship between business interests and the mellow editorial line adopted by the media. Like you, I have been reading about some big scandals spun as the greatest achievements in the world and some ministers’ absurd statements on the economy being taken almost seriously. However, that could be just a matter of appreciation.

I still believe that independent journalists will continue to do their work despite of the pressure. The number of these journalists is shrinking but those who are still fighting need our support and encouragement. We have to always recognise their brave stance and help them promote the principles that they are fighting for.

Every journalist still fighting today for a better tomorrow for every Mauritian is doing it at the expense of his/her career, the well-being of their families and so many opportunities that they will never get. We should be conscious of that every time we read an article. Without the brave men and women doing this job, the situation would be even worse. In these times of disappearing checks and balances, we must be grateful for those who are keeping the profession alive.

* You had adopted a very critical line vis-à-vis both the SAJ- and the Pravind Jugnauth-led governments during the time you were editing ‘Weekly’. What motivated that approach?

I wouldn’t personalise my criticism of governments. Readers who followed me from the beginning will remember my criticisms of the Ramgoolam government when the Labour Party was in power as well, and how I fought tooth and nail against the then personal arrangement between Navin Ramgoolam and Paul Bérenger for a second republic.

I have nothing personal against either SAJ or Pravind Jugnauth. In fact, I knew SAJ personally and had a lot of respect for him on a personal level. What I was criticising were the dangerous measures taken by both governments since 2015: a wave of arrests of opponents on trumped-up charges; unlawful attacks on businesses perceived to be close to the former government; a frontal attack on the rule of law (l’état de droit); and the enactment of laws that encroach upon our liberties.; anti-democratic practices; an unprecedented level of nepotism that has resulted in the country being divided into “nou ban” and “banla”; an atmosphere of fear that has reduced everyone to silence; a level of propaganda hitherto unseen in the country; a series of scandals going to the extent of mafia-style executions… And lo and behold, those things I had been denouncing have all ended up costing the taxpayer billions and we haven’t settled the full bill yet.

All the trumped-up charges against opponents have been thrown out by our courts of law and there are dozens of court cases against the government; the chickens will come home to roost one day as they did in other cases: Betamax has cost us over Rs6 billion, Neotown nearly Rs2 billion and BAI Rs21 billion and counting.

At the time, when I was denouncing the excesses and autocratic practices of the government, many people could not see where we were heading. Today, they do, but it is a bit too late, as the public purse has been squeezed dry out of our hard-earned money to pay for the inane decisions made by the government in our name.

* Many believe that the current government’s approach to dissent and opposition has crossed democratic lines. Does this suggest that the checks and balances within the system have failed?

The checks and balances within a system only work when we have honest, honourable people who respect the rules of democracy.

First and foremost of these rules is the independence of institutions which guarantee our freedoms and equality before the law: an independent Director of Public Prosecutions who is allowed to work according to his conscience without fear or favour; an independent police commissioner who treats all citizens equally irrespective of whether they are pro or against the government in place, not one who dredges up cases against opponents 12 years later when they become a threat; a corruption watchdog that swiftly pounces on criminals no matter whether they are “nou ban” or “banla”; an independent central bank that protects the strength of the rupee instead of acting as a government financier; government institutions which are committed to promoting the interests of the many instead of “get figir”…

In your opinion, how many of these checks and balances are functioning effectively? That’s the answer to your question.

* There’s a clear distinction between strong leadership and autocratic tendencies, isn’t there?

Yes, indeed.

In fact, it’s more appropriate to talk about weak leaders and autocratic leaders in the same breath because autocratic leaders are weak, insecure and feel threatened by the people around them. They do not brook any criticism whatsoever and are diffident in their approach. And because weak leaders are so weak, instead of leading, they impose their views and decisions on the rest of their team and do not tolerate any dissent. They rule through fear.

You usually can tell how weak a leader is by the number of times his subordinates have to refer to his great qualities before they engage in any speech, as the weak leaders need to be reassured that they are still in charge. To get that satisfaction, they always surround themselves with weaker, obsequious people who feed their ego and diffidence and punish anyone who does not fall in line. This is how autocrats are created and operate.

* From your vantage point as an editor and with sometimes privileged information of what’s happening in the corridors of power, did you ever feel that our elite – whether in positions within the checks and balances of the system, including the civil service, or in leadership roles in the traditional private sector – have also failed us or contributed to the current situation?

I think we are all guilty, if only through our silence.

You know human nature enough to know that there are two things which motivate people: gain and fear of loss. Ethics, good governance, and principles are nice phrases to use when trying to impress an audience, but ultimately, business is there to make business and stay in business. This government understands this well and has adeptly leveraged that understanding.

The message sent through the BAI, Neotown, Betamax, etc., was loud and clear. Hence the fear that has been gripping many businesses and civil servants since. That constant fear has killed many good things in our compatriots and has created the shameful chatwaism culture.

* Besides the elite, it’s possible that the culture of freebies and populist measures also serves to anesthetise the populace to the misgovernance and questionable practices of the government. Isn’t that why it seems almost impossible to gauge the feelings of the electorate these days?

There are in my opinion at least two reasons why it’s difficult to gauge the way the electorate is likely to go.

First, fear of retribution. And as you never know what form that retribution might take, the fear is intensified. There is a large chunk of the electorate that claims to be undecided as the last opinion poll has shown. A certain percentage of those who are ‘undecided’ are in fact not as ‘undecided’ at all that but live in fear of what might happen to them if they declared their intention to vote against the government in place.

The other segment of the ‘undecided’ – which brings us to the second reason – are genuinely undecided, and their vote will hinge on who is offering them the bigger bone to chew on. It is sad, but part of the electorate is even more cynical than the politicians they elect to power. What you rightly call “the culture of freebies”, which has been created by populist measures, has reached a level no one thought was possible. What this sadly means is that there is a price at which all the excesses and scandals of the government can be relegated to oblivion, even if the population is paying for those “freebies” themselves.

* We may have a different electorate today, both in its composition and outlook, from what obtained in earlier elections post-independence. In light of this, how would you assess the evolving dynamics on the electoral front?

Before the writ of elections has been issued, it is very difficult to see clearly.

Pravind Jugnauth has not said his last word yet and we still don’t know how many freebies will be dished up to counteract the scandals. I am not even sure how many people still remember or care about the scandals. Who remembers the Wakashio that brought 150,000 protesters to the streets of Port Louis?

Who still has a vague recollection of Pack & Blister, Molnupiravir, or the billions squandered while we were busy counting our dead? Who still remembers the stag, boar, and Black Label parties at the ranch next to Grand Bassin? Who were Franklin, Dewdanee, and others? What was the tractopelle carrying?

The only thing that people still remember is perhaps Soopramanien Kistnen because his wife has kept him alive.

* How do you assess the PTr-MMM-ND Opposition as a challenger to an MSM-led alliance?

It is now clear to most political observers that the alliance you have mentioned – now baptised “Alliance du Changement” – is the only challenger to the MSM-PMSD-Mouvement Patriotique-Mouvement Liberater-Platforme Militante-Ramano, etc. alliance. No other opposition bloc can dream of electing 30 plus candidates to make up a government. I think everyone knows that by now.

The addition of Resitans ek Alternativ (ReA) has been very good news for the alliance partners as the leftist party has a great deal of credibility and a history of fighting for noble causes like Mauritianism, the environment, workers’ rights, etc. By accommodating ReA, the alliance has also sent the message that they are prepared to accept and introduce the changes this country needs to give more chances to everyone and create more unity.

The opposition alliance is therefore in a strong position, provided its communication strategy is right. They should consistently remind us of the broken promises and of our journey from a democratic country with sound independent institutions, a live-and-let-live ethos; a country where citizens were free to express themselves to a country divided into “nou ban” and “banla”; where fear has become the daily grub served to “banla”. Additionally, they should field credible candidates who have been steadfast in their fight against the ills that this government has inflicted on the country, not latecomers who have opportunistically jumped on the bandwagon.

* What about increasing women’s representation in politics? Many women’s NGOs argue that it is essential for fostering equality…

I may shock many of your readers, but I have never fought for the cause of giving more opportunities to women just because we are women. I have always fought for meritocracy, which will definitely result in more meritorious women being fielded for our merit, not because we are women.

If a man is a better candidate, I don’t think he should be sacrificed just because we want to give the impression of being modern and forward-looking by lining up more women, even more so that some of these were hiding in their funk hole while the worst atrocities were taking place in this country. I want the same opportunities as you, not more, not less. Anything else goes against the principle of fairness.

Protecting women through quotas is an insult to our intelligence and our worth. We don’t want charity; we want to fight on an equal footing with no hindrance and no concessions.

* In your opinion, has the MSM-led alliance been strengthened or weakened by the addition of the latecomer PMSD?

It is a catch-22 situation.

On the one hand, I think the PMSD is the only serious party available right now to join the MSM-PMSD-Mouvement Patriotique-Mouvement Liberater-Platforme Militante-Ramano alliance and mitigate the disaster it is in. Xavier Duval is the only ally who has never thrown babies out of their shacks in the middle of winter or given state land to his mother or mistress, has no record of associating with Franklin and co., is not entangled in any Rs700 million corruption case, has no property in Dubai, etc. So, he is the only ally that Pravind Jugnauth can aspire to have now and whose track record might allow him to hide his own questionable practices.

Also, Duval’s Private Notice Questions have revealed to the population something we, journalists who had been interviewing him, have always known: he is smart, coherent in his approach and rather dignified: we have never heard him start his speeches with “Thanks to his majesty the king of the world” etc., or seconded oppressive motions against his colleagues in the opposition.

On the other hand, the PMSD is today a shadow of its old self after the resignation of several of its prominent members. For a small party, losing so many high ranking members is consequential. More importantly, by enlisting Xavier Duval as an ally, the MSM has immediately dented the credibility Xavier built through years as a redoubtable leader of the opposition who consistently kept the government on the back foot. The respect and adulation he earned thawed as soon as he tacitly joined the government he had been vehemently criticising for years, swallowing all the criticisms he made it his mission to fire at them in the not-so-distant past.

In the eyes of many today, Xavier Duval is no longer the principled man who cares about the country but rather a father who is interested in saving his children at the expense of everything else. These are facts. How the electorate will react to them is not for me to say.

* Do you think the PMSD’s alignment with the MSM-led alliance in 2024 could recreate the conditions of 2014 and lead to a similar result?

Not as far as I can see. The conditions have changed quite a bit. The MSM has sunk deeper and deeper under scandals, most of which have had a direct effect on the population in the form of the scourge of drugs, inflation, the loss of purchasing power, etc.

Xavier Duval is no longer the hero or even the victim he was seen to be in 2014 and the opposition alliance is more united than the government had perhaps hoped. The dangers that still lurk for the Alliance du Changement are two-fold: firstly, several small parties which are likely to intentionally or unintentionally muddy the waters and, secondly, their communication strategy. It is an alliance where most people feel represented and recognised.

Having said that, they should not give any fodder to their opponents to concoct any dish with communal undertones – something the latter excel at.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 20 September 2024