The Comparative Survey of Freedom is an annual yearbook published since 1972 by Freedom House. The yearbook is a global study of the state of democracy, with emphasis on different aspects of freedom and human rights. Freedom House is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. It is best known for political advocacy surrounding issues of democracy, political freedom, and human rights. Freedom House was founded in October 1941, with Wendell Willkie and Eleanor Roosevelt serving as its first honorary chairpersons with a mission is to expand and defend freedom globally, and its vision is a world where all are free.

We are now in October 2023 and general elections are looming in Mauritius. Of particular interest from a Mauritian perspective is the chapter on the state of democracy in Mauritius in the yearbook published in 1986 - Freedom in the World, Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1986–1987, by Raymond D. Gastil. A read through much of the chapter shows that the many of the challenges faced by Mauritian society are still much the same, simply juxtaposed in time, nearly 37 years later. Below is a copy of the said chapter, to mull and reflect on for those who have the future of Mauritius on their mind.

Mauritius: A Small Third World Democracy

Political and civil liberties are weak in both the second and third worlds. In the second world they are displaced by communist ideology. In the third, their weakness results from a variety of social, cultural, and economic factors. Mauritius is the most democratic country in the African region. The fact that the majority of its people are of non-African background, and its history quite different than that of the continental states, makes the lessons of its democratic development less applicable to Africa as a whole, but no less significant for understanding the problems of democracy in the developing world. Lying well east of Madagascar, Mauritius has experienced the isolation of many independent islands. An island entirely formed by relatively recent volcanic activity, the topography of its 28-by-32 mile expanse is characterized by rolling plains interspersed by steep, jagged, “young” mountains. Although rising barely over 2000 feet, many of these are bare and stark at their crests. The climate varies from a moderately hot and humid coastal zone to a somewhat cooler inland, with rainfall ranging from 40 inches to 200 in the wettest areas. Cyclones have always been a problem, and even today restrict what agricultural crops may be successfully grown. When first encountered by European expeditions to the Indies, Mauritius was entirely uninhabited, and its wildlife was both special and quite limited. The flightless Dodo bird that could only exist in the almost complete absence of mammals is, of course, the best known. The island seemed anything but pleasant to its first visitors. Sailors, they came of necessity; they quickly destroyed much of the special fauna and decimated the forests. Aside from a stop for food, water or wood, its chief virtue to the early visitors was the absence of diseases, such as malaria or cholera, that ravaged other tropical areas.1 The Dutch tried twice in the seventeenth century to build a successful colony that would serve as a provisioning port on the way to the Indies. Since by the early eighteenth century, the population had only reached 300, the colonists tried importing African slaves and growing sugar. They cut down most of the ebony. But convinced that settlements would never thrive, the island was abandoned in 1710. Twelve years later the French established a new colony, and after a desultory start began in the 1730s to develop the sugar and slave society that came to characterize the island. Even this was an an appendage of the French colonies in India, and its fortunes rose and fell with that of French India. The highly stratified and often cultured French colonial society quarreled with revolutionary France in the 1790s over its desire to suppress slavery. For a time almost independent, Mauritius was finally conquered by the British in 1810. The population of about 80,000 consisted overwhelmingly of African slaves. The British conquest was marked by an agreement allowing the French to maintain their language and culture . As a result, although the official language became and remained English, and the public schools are taught in English, the most common language has been and remains French Creole; the language of culture and the newspapers is French. This entrenched bilingualism has stood the Mauritians in good stead in their effort to be accepted as a mediating people on the African continent. Soon the British moved to suppress the slave trade, and finally slavery itself. By the late 1830s planters were forced to turn to importing indentured laborers from India. With the ending of slavery the African workers stayed in Mauritius, but preferred casual work and subsistence activities to continued work in the fields. Indians were brought in rapidly, and often worked in conditions little better than that of the slaves before them. By 1846 one-third of the population was Indian, and by 1870 two-thirds, a ratio maintained to this day. The elite French population stabilized at about 10,000, and has maintained its cultural and economic leadership without growth since. The island prospered in the middle of the nineteenth century, but subsequently the quality of life declined as tropical diseases such as malaria and cholera decimated the population. Prosperity returned during World War I, and the development of the island was little interrupted by the worldwide depression of the 1930s. Councils had been established as far back as the 1790s, and councils of the elite continued to play an important role throughout the nineteenth century. Early in the twentieth century Indian leaders brought the idea of popular rights to their large and by now stabilized communties. Followers of Gandhi started a newspaper, and pressed for improvements in living conditions. Indian workers achieved legal independence in the 1920s from the plantations on which they worked, and began to be paid by the day. Importation of indentured labour ceased. In reaction, some French colonialists pressed for the island’s return to French control. Failure of this movement to attract support even in the French community confirmed the split between culture and politics that had characterized the society since 1810. Educational and cultural movements among the Indians, and the general improvement in their position led to the first election of Indians to public office, and in the 1930s to the establishment of the Labour Party, largely supported by the Indian community. Education and working conditions continued to improve, but, as all communities became more conscious of their rights, demonstrations and riots also became more fequent. The electorate remained small; national elections in 1945 were still open to only five percent of the population. The 1947 constitution extended suffrage to all those literate in any language, but the Legislative Council was still dominated by the colonial governor. The governor held most of the power, and, in addition, appointed many Council members. New political parties were established in the fifties, representing the French and Creoles (Mauritian Social Democratic Party), as well as a Muslim bloc. The growing power of the Hindu majority to determine the future of the island led to general opposition by smaller groups both to universal suffrage and independence. The mid-sixties witnessed an increasingly violent struggle between the opposing sides. But the British pressed ahead for full independence. The society they finally propelled into full independence in 1968 had deep ethnic divisions. But by now the country was also well on its way toward full literacy . Its nutritional and health standards were rapidly improving — which also meant at the time a very rapid rate of population increase. For a time population growth was seen as a critical problem. With little but sugar to sustain the economy, Mauritius during this period was often cited as an example of the demographic disaster that was overtaking much of the third world. Although Mauritian society contained a wide variety of ethnic and religious communities, the primary division was along the lines of attachment to one of three imported cultural traditions — French, English, and Indian. Yet the overlap of the traditions was as important. Many Mauritians, including all of the better educated, were attached to more than one, if not all three, of these cultural worlds. Fortunately, the “homelands” for people ascribing to any of these three traditions had strong democratic traditions. The strength of these reenforcing attachments to democratic traditions, and the lack of a truly “native” tradition or culture set the problems and opportunities of Mauritius quite apart from those of much of the third world. Each of the major ethnic divisions is again internally subdivided into quite different groups. Amounting to about thirty percent of the total, the “general population” includes the whites, primarily of French background, the coloureds, and the Africans (with the latter two groups collectively referred to as Creoles). The French maintain a high level of education and income, and still own the bulk of the sugar land on which the economy is based. The French government subsidizes an important high school, and a lively social life is maintained entirely within the 10,000 or so members of this community. Much larger is the mixed African-white, coloured, community. Many have become successful in professions such as teaching, the law, and the ministry, as well as the civil service. African Creoles tend to be darker, and to be commonly urban labourers or artisans. They are the most likely group to be monolingual in the Creole patois. Representing about two-thirds of the population, people of Indian ancestry came as agricultural laborers, and still form the bulk of the agricultural and rural population. Some are Christians, but the majority of the population is either Hindu (three-fourths) or Muslim. The Indian community is further divided between non Hindi speakers from the south of India (Tamil and Telegu) and the majority Hindi speakers, and between those of the different castes. While caste is less important in overseas Indian communities than at home, and the tight restrictions on contact characteristic of traditional India are not observed, there is conflict between the communities rhetorically and in politics. Differences between communities have also been exacerbated by the differentiation of Indians by occupation, with Muslims more likely to be urban merchants. In recent years the reluctance of the non-Hindu, non Hindi-speaking groups to support the majority community has threatened to erase Indian dominance in politics. Indian dominance has also been diluted by the growth in the number of people with Indian background who now report that they speak Creole rather than an Indian language in the home. There are about twice as many Chinese as Europeans, and they have traditionally dominated retail and wholesale trade, particularly in the capital city. Highly educated, they have also risen in the civil service and the professions, but remained outside of politics. To this older population should perhaps be added the small group of wealthy entrepreneurs and managers that have recently arrived from the Far East to establish textile industries. Rural and urban populations are ethnically quite different, with the countryside overwhelmingly Hindu. But the smallness of the island, and the closeness of its interlocking urban areas, has combined with the absence of ethnic regionalism to create a country that is at once homogeneous and highly differentiated. Politics has been played out in ethnic and ideological terms, and yet has been unable to offer clear alternatives to the voters beyond those of independence and democracy themselves. During the independence struggle the Labour Party under Indian leadership played the major role, along with Liberal London politicians. Since the 1950s it seems fair to say that the same group that brought Labour to predominance has remained in power even though Labour has splintered and broken in so many directions that it is no longer a major party. Since independence Mauritius has played a curiously mixed role in the world. With an elite strongly attached to democratic traditions, the country has nevertheless come to see itself as an African country , and thereby to espouse the cause of increasingly nondemocratic countries. The issue of Diego Garcia has come to be a persistent irritant in its relation to the countries of the West, and to be a useful political ploy in the hands of any opposition leader. The issue as seen from Mauritius is one of territorial loss and foreign duplicity. Diego Garcia, a sparsely inhabited island, was incorporated into the British Indian Ocean Territory before Mauritius’ independence for a consideration of three million pounds. The British resettled its population in the Seychelles and Mauritius, and leased the island to the United States for a military base. Mauritius claims that such a use was not foreseen, but there is little evidence of what was discussed prior to the sale. Whatever may have been said, it is easy to make the argument that it was sold too cheaply, and at a time when Mauritius was preoccupied with the issue of independence for its home territory, and when its leaders were willing to agree to anything to achieve this objective. The party structure of the 1960s that pitted a dominant, pro-independence Labour Party, based on an Indian elite and a majority of rural Indians, against everyone else, and particularly the Parti Mauricien, began to fall apart almost as soon as Independence was achieved. In 1969 the opposition leader joined the government to create a grand coalition on condition that elections planned for 1972 would be postponed. From the perspective of what was occurring in much of Africa, this move might have looked like the preliminary step toward a one-party state. But it was not. At almost the same time as the coalition was established a new, radical left-wing movement under the leadership of a native Frenchman was also established. The Militant Movement (MMM) quickly captured the imagination of the younger generation, and particularly of the urban population. Although its urban base would seem to make it relatively isolated from the Indian population, its international political stance, and its anticommunalism gave it appeal in all communities. The first post-independence election did not occur until 1976, at a time when the Parti Mauricien had returned to the opposition. Running as the Independence Party, with new coalition partners, the old Labour party hierarchy represented the struggles of the past. Economically they were centrist but establishment. The Independence Party’s security legislation, detainment of dissidents, anti-labor measures, and introduction of foreign investment became the campaign issues. The Party Mauricien supported capitalist policies, while the MMM campaigned for the workers interests as a “class” party, although its leader, Paul Berenger, was certainly not from this background. The MMM was easily open to accusations of communism and inexperience. But the election was clearer than those before or after in the definition of parties and issues, and ninety percent of eligible voters participated. The result of the election was a very narrow victory for the establishment. The largest winner was the MMM with 41 percent of the votes and 34 out of 70 seats. The losing parties, with a narrow majority between them, managed to put together the government. Since this was a less complex election than most, and the unique “best loser “ system’s application was relatively uncomplicated, this is a good time to pause briefly to consider this Mauritian innovation. Through its use the electoral system of Mauritius has been carefully developed to defuse the problems of ethnic voting. The electors actually elected 30 MMM candidates, 25 Independence candidates, and 7 Parti Mauricien supporters. The eight remaining seats were then apportioned to best losers. These persons must have run as candidates and done relatively well in the election. The first four of the eight are those four persons from ethnic groups that have not achieved their proportional share of seats in the election of the 62, but did the best among persons from their ethnic group of those who lost. The next four are chosen to repair the damage to the party preferences that the people have shown in the election that might have occurred as a result of the choosing of the first four. In this case the result was the final total of 34, 28, and 8 respectively. The system may also be used for other purposes, as we shall see: it certainly is also used to bring back in particularly desirable persons who happened to have been defeated. MMM quickly came back with victories in municipal elections. Soon their leaders were again involved in labor strife, and several were arrested. Their detentions, as in the early seventies, were for short periods.2 By the time of the 1982 general election, a socialist party (PSM) emerged as a splinter movement from the Independence (Labour) party. This time the PSM and MMM won all elective seats (in combination with a small regional party from the island of Rodriques). The two parties that had dominated politics in the mid-1960s (Parti Mauricien, now the “social democratic” PSDM, and the Labour Party, now Independence Party in alliance with an old Muslim grouping) had to be content with four of the “best loser” seats among them. (The other four best loser seats were apparently ignored as not needed.) The winning coalition was under the direction of Aneerood Jugnauth, who had formerly been a political leader in the Independent Forward Bloc representing Hindu interests in the mid-1960s. In this capacity he had attended the independence negotiations in London and later joined the government. In the 1950s he joined the MMM and quickly became its leader. Boodhoo, the leader of the PSM, and Berenger were the other leaders of consequence. Jointly, they promised selective nationalization and the expansion of the welfare state.3 Within a few months the government collapsed when most of the MMM ministers resigned, leaving essentially the Prime Minister and the PSM ministers. Jugnauth was expelled from the MMM, of which he was the leader, but not from the prime ministership. The division made sense in ethnic terms, for the expansion of the MMM to include Jugnauth’s leadership had always been in realization of the necessity of the party to escape its early Creole base. Yet, when this base pressed for making Creole a national language to replace English, the result was inevitably that the Indians, who have traditionally been supporters of English, would again leave the coalition. More confusing was the fact that financial disagreements, resulting from austerity measures promoted by Berenger that raised the prices of basic goods, also played a part in the split. The outcome was a party realignment, which saw Jugnauth creating a new MSM (Militant Socialist Movement), with which Boodhoo’s PSM immediately joined. Berenger again became leader of the MMM. However, when Jugnauth and his new government failed to attain a majority, new elections were held in 1983.4 In this election the new and supposedly radical MSM, the “capitalist “ PMSD, and the resurrected centrist Labour Party campaigned as an “Alliance” against the MMM, and particularly against Berenger for his anti-populist measures as Finance Minister. This time the MMM received only seventeen of the elective seats, although forty-six percent of the popular vote.5 The situation has been highly volatile since 1983, with a steady growth in the strength of the opposition and a fragmentation in that of the Alliance. By 1984 the long-time leader of the Labour Party, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, had become governor-general, and the Labour Party fell under the leadership of Sir Satcam Boolell, who opposed the apparent merging of the interests of the older party in the new Alliance. Boolell’s continued independence led to his expulsion from the government. He countered by expelling all those from the party , “his party, “ that did not leave the government with him. He failed to take along any of the others who remained in the government; they now redesignated themselves the RTM, or Assembly of Mauritian Workers. Later others from this group also defected to the opposition. Shortly after Boolell’s separation from the Alliance, Sylvio Michel, the former leader of the MSM quit the government to form his own party. In 1985 the Rodriguan regional party split, with its leader going to the opposition . In this same year five leading members of the parliament were also suspended from parliament for insulting the president of the assembly. They did not return until April 1986, after they had made a formal apology.6 The continuing struggle between the government and the highly partisan and “involved” community of journalists was renewed in 1984. The first blow, the rise in the cost of newsprint by nearly fifty percent was perhaps explicable in terms of economics. But the second, a new government requirement that large bonds be posted by all publications before they could be legitimized, led to a demonstration in front of the parliament and the subsequent detention of forty-four journalists. Although quickly released the journalists went international with their complaints, and held meetings throughout the society. Ultimately, the courts and a joint committee brought the dispute to an end by achieving the revocation of the government’s bill.7 In January 1986 four government ministers resigned their posts, but did not leave the coalition. Another member of the (now) RTM joined the opposition. More serious perhaps was the split within MSM, with the party whip, Boodhoo, the old leader of the PSM, being dropped. He attained , however, control over the party supported newspaper, Le Socialiste, which then led Jugnauth to found another paper, the Sun, in opposition to his own party’s paper. What led to all this activity is a little mysterious. In part, it reflects the difficulties of combining ethnic loyalties with coherent policies. In part, it reflects the lack of strong party loyalties within a new ruling class for which position is clearly more important than party. From a comparative, third-world perspective Mauritius is doing very well economically. The people are well educated, literate , productive, and there is a lively freedom of activity in many spheres, including the political. The latest vital statistics on the country show a population of about one million, rising slowly to 1,250,000 in the year 2000. The death rate of the young population has fallen to 6.6, while the infant mortality rate is about 25 per 1000 live births. The people receive 119 percent of their minimum food requirement according to FAO standards. Eighty-five percent have at least a minimum level of literacy. Newspaper circulation is 75 per 1000 population (compared to 15 in Nigeria, 14 in Kenya, and 42 in South Africa). The GNP/Capita is $1000. Although an agricultural society, overwhelmingly dependent on sugar, only twenty-six percent of the population is actually engaged in agriculture.8 Nevertheless, to Mauritians, perhaps because they are so , and so well-traveled as a people, and therefore so aware of the outside world, conditions do not seem good. Unemployment rates are very high. Many young people can neither afford a private high school, nor pass the examinations required to enjoy a free secondar y education. Yet from the end of compulsory schooling at twelve until 16, young people cannot get a work permit. A great gulf exists between the ways of life of the old planter society, the foreign tourist society, and the new ruling class, on the one hand, and that of the majority of the people, on the other. Many do not see the older parties, or the “system” working for them. Against this general malaise — suggested already by opinion polls in the late 1970s that reported fifty percent of Mauritians would consider leaving, and three-fourth would advise their children to work elsewhere9 — four ministers of government were arrested in Amsterdam for carrying drugs. Only one eventually was kept for trial, but the case served to blow up the dimensions of the drug problem, the drug trade, and corruption in the system. To American eyes this might appear a small problem; but in the small, compact island of Mauritius, an island emotionally and economically so dependent on the good opinion of the world, the issue threatened to bring down the government.10 Against this background local elections in the five municipalities in 1986 were won overwhelmingly by the MMM. The process of political erosion reached a culmination in the demand for a vote of confidence in early May, 1986. The issues addressed in the motion were many; most important were the Amsterdam scandal, the continuing housing shortage , and the repressive labour law. There was also a more diffuse allegation that the institutions of democracy, and particularly the parliament, were being by-passed by the government. A major purpose of the call for a vote was to discomfort the fence-sitters. The three members of the original Labour Party (Boodhoo), for example, were said to be split three ways by the call. 11 By the time for the debate , everyone agreed that the MMM had moved too early. It did not have the votes to bring down the government. The RTM, MSM-Jugnauth, and PSDM voted with the government, as did most of the other MSM members. Many abstained, including three ministers of the government. One walked out, and in the end the MMM was isolated in its vote for the resolution. The legislators had many reasons not to want another election at this time. But some day, and some day soon, most observers are agreed that the MMM, the real MMM of Berenger, will come to power. Many fear this accession, and speak darkly of communism, and one party Africa. Others see this as an outdated opinion of the “old Berenger,” and believe they are now dealing with a more moderate movement. Certainly the party’s newspaper Le Militant seems to be something less than a pro-Soviet mouthpiece. Whichever it is, there is no doubt that the process of development that the government has pursued with the best of foreign and local advice has been successful, but at a price. Population growth has been brought down to manageable levels, except on the backward, Catholic island of Rodrigues that exists on handouts from the main island. Industry has been attracted, agriculture has been strengthened . Sugar is well financed and backstopped by scientific experiment. Diversification of agriculture is proceeding enthusiastically, if not as extensively as originally hoped. Textile exports have become increasingly important with the accession of a number of textile mills from the Far East in the last few years. Stability and growth have been purchased at the cost of labor legislation that makes legal strikes so difficult that all major strikes since the early seventies have been “illegal.” Consequently, strikes usually lead to arrests. Security laws have also allowed for detentions on a number of occasions. The “Public Order Act” allows for a near state of emergency even in normal times. Since independence, a National Intelligence Unit is said to have grown in power, facilities, and arrogance; opponents claim their phone lines are tapped and regularly monitored. A 1985 law against defamation of government ministers can be regarded as a severe curtailment of freedom of speech. Its terms include: “Any person who publishes or utters publicly any word or expression which imputes a fact which is injurious to or contemptuous or abusive of the government shall, unless he can substantiate such fact, “ be liable to a fine on first offense and up to ten years in prison for the second. This law specifically enjoins “imputations” of dishonesty, fraud, or corruption. A new law also states that the publication or diffusion of false information, even with reservations, or diffusion of true information to make its effect contemptuous, shall be subject to a fine. 11 Defenders of the system point out that actually no one has been detained under these laws. Critics point to frequent attacks on the press in the past, and other attempts to restrict its freedom. In spite of the laws, an obviously vibrant and well-read press continues to express the views of every part of the political spectrum. Radio and television are government and public controlled, but have generally expressed a government viewpoint in the fashion of India. However, in 1986 government television was said to be giving a more neutral and fair presentation of news than formerly. This is a highly litigious society, top-heavy with professionals and powerful business leaders quite aware of their rights. Mauritius has reached a point of “democratic takeoff (in the Rustowian sense of a point from takeoff in economic development).13 Whether this takeoff can be sustained in the near future depends on a variety of factors. Most important is the balance of influences that come upon the island from the outside. The fact that its main trading and intellectual connections are with Europe and India are certainly supportive of continued democratization. Yet the continued weakness of democratic attitudes, the inability of the democratic system to live up to a high level of behavior is threatening. The system will only be inoculated when it is possible to have a party leader in the government that represents the urban people and overcomes dependence on the ethnic politics of the past. Then a more organized political structure might develop truly responsible government.

NOTES 1. The following discussion is based primarily on Adele Smith Simmons, Modern Mauritius: The Politics of Decolonization (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), and A. R. Mannick, Mauritius: The Development of a Plural Society (London: Spokesman, 1979). Especially for the period after 1980 these have been supplemented by reference to Keesing’s Contemporary Archives and similar sources, as well as the author’s perusal of the current media and political discussions during a visit to Mauritius in May, 1986.

2. Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, 1980, page 30030.

3. Keesing’s, 1982, pag e 31763; See also Maurice 85: Almanach d’information generate sur l’ile Maurice (Port Louis: 1985), page 40.

4. Keesing’s, 1983, pages 32297–8.

5. Keesing’s, 1983, pages 32542–3.

6. For the expulsion of Boolell and formation of the Michel’ party see Maurice 85, pages 37–38. Africa Research Bulletin, May 15, 1986, pages 8042–3.

7. Maurice 85, pages 96–97.

8. Encyclopedi a Britannica , 198 6 Britannica Book of the Year (Chicago: 1986), especially page 735.

9. Simmons, Modern Mauritius, page 197.

10. L’Express, May 7, 1986, pages 5–6.

11. In addition to the above, see Le Mauricien, May 3, 1986, Weekend, May 4, 1986, and Le Militant, May 4, 1986, especially the interview with Anil Gayan, page 4.

12. Government Gazette of Mauritius, March 16, 1985, Legal Supplement №25.

13. W. W. Rustow, The Stage s of Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), especially pages 36–58.

Reference: Freedom_in_the_World_1986–1987_complete_book.pdf (freedomhouse.org)