What Kind of Future Beckons?

It is salutary to step back as it were and take a ‘panoramic’ view of one’s country, so as to have a more realistic perspective of the direction in which it is going

By Dr R Neerunjun Gopee

Thousands of Mauritians live abroad, out of choice or necessity. In bigger countries there are no doubt more and better opportunities for jobs and higher earnings than is possible here. The money factor is likely to be the major driver in most cases, but for other categories professional satisfaction is equally important. However, the many who have not left our shores and prefer to live in their vaunted ‘paradise’ island’ – again out of choice or necessity (family reasons, no means to go abroad, etc.) – adapt and adjust accordingly. This is not necessarily easy, especially with the pressures and the pace of modern life in the increasingly difficult environment where daily activities are carried out.

The daily experience of living in the island is perhaps no better or worse than obtains elsewhere, as people in all countries face broadly similar issues such as: road congestion in commuting to work, varying levels of job satisfaction, discrimination at the workplace, issues of promotion, schooling of children and care of the younger ones while both parents are at work, responsibility for the elderly, and so on and so forth.

In general, in their day-to-day life people are not conscious of how the broader political, social, and economic forces at play impact on their lives. And yet these do, perhaps in a more fundamental way than the people themselves realize, because many of the decisions that affect them arise out of a complex interplay among these very forces. A recent example is the implementation of the minimum wage, which will affect not only employees but also employers, and in both cases not always favourably. But it is a major step that the country has collectively agreed upon, and the people perforce have to face the consequences, at individual and national levels.

That is why from time to time it is salutary to step back as it were and take a ‘panoramic’ view of one’s country, so as to have a more realistic perspective of the direction in which it is going and use this input to then make course corrections wherever these are indicated. In that respect, findings of surveys that are made public from time to time should goad us into taking actions and measures which must be at all levels and in all spheres of national life if we are concerned about the future and image of our country.

And we mustn’t self-congratulate ourselves or sit on our so-called laurels when we are given a pat on the back by external agencies that do not have a complete take on all our ground realities. For example, in the past the Ibrahim Index of African Governance has vouched for the quality of Mauritius’ democracy by ranking the country as the best-governed country in Africa. (Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2017). But then, it did so during the mandate of the previous dispensation too, and although much has already been said about the legally questionable methods used to uncover some of the dysfunctions that allegedly prevailed then, the question that comes up is how much credibility we should assign to this Index or others in light of local happenings. But also, benchmarking ourselves against regimes in Africa which are struggling for legitimacy is perhaps to set ourselves at a less than optimum level at the very outset, so being first among the not-too-good isnot really a feather in the national cap isn’t it?

In the same year, an Afrobarometer survey showed that things are not as rosy as the Mo Ibrahim Index would have us believe. Thus, the survey showed that ‘Mauritians are less satisfied with their democracy and have less trust in their institutions than they did just a few years ago’ (italics added).

That should surely be a cause for major worry. It is worthy of note that the same survey noted that the President’s rating had fallen from 52% to 31% – meaning that less than one in three Mauritians trusted their president.

Interestingly, this factor of ‘trust deficit’ between the citizenry and those who govern has emerged as such a critical factor even in the established major democracies. Our best hope is that such findings act as a wake-up call for all institutions which have not lived up to the integrity standards expected of them, and that they do all within their power to restore that lost trust so that the country can move forward confidently.

The central message that emerges is that, starting with the political class, all institutions have to put their act together and do their own mea culpa, and reflect on how to become more trustworthy, transparent, unafraid of accountability, and efficient. A stronger streak of patriotism should be cultivated so that we make of our country one to be truly proud of, for the sake of the future generations for whom opportunities elsewhere are set to diminish given the rising nationalisms globally.

It is not sufficient that in our choice of people to occupy positions of great responsibility we focus solely on their physical attributes, their looks, their competence, their qualifications, their intelligence because, in any case, all of them will possess these to some degree. Nor must purely political or politically correct considerations be the determining factors.

What, on the contrary, must be of overriding significance is what we call the character of the potential aspirants. It is made up of qualities that are expansive rather than limited to the attributes of the body and the mind-intellect. What constitutes character includes among others: attitude, humaneness, goodness, humility, a sense of fair play and justice, absence of prejudices, objectivity, rationality and reasonableness, a sense of morality.

It is essentially the character of a person which frames his conduct, and that is why the single most important quality that we look for and admire in a person is the character, and by extension the single most important attribute that we respect in a person is his sense of morality and ethics. And because with great power comes great responsibility, we as a people must demand that, everything else being equal, the unique marker of holders of high office should be their ethical conduct. Period.

Truly it is said that ‘character is a tree, reputation its shadow; most people go after the shadow, whereas it is the tree which is more important’. For heaven’s sake, let us not go after shadows.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 10 May 2024