Should efficient management trump politics?

The Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill introduced at first reading by the Minister of Financial Services, Good Governance and Institutional Reforms Mr. Roshi Bhadain at the National Assembly on Tuesday 27 October, 2015, continues to fuel debates outside Parliament. The leader of the Opposition and of the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) Mr. Paul Bérenger has, at his press conference held on Saturday, urged the Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth to open talks on “the means to be set up to crack down illicit wealth”. Well, that’s Mr. Paul Bérenger! Each time, an important issue crops up, he calls for talks with the Prime Minister of the day. He did the same thing with the former Prime Minister Dr. Navin Ramgoolam on the issue of electoral reforms and indulged in his now infamous series of “koze kozé” (informal talks) which ultimately led to the creation of the Labour/MMM alliance prior to the December 2014 general elections. Earlier, he had gone to meet the then President of the Republic, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, to convince him to leave his post and to stage a comeback in politics “to save the country”. That led to the creation of the Remake which was later disbanded. Interestingly enough, Sir Anerood Jugnauth accomplished the mission entrusted into him by Mr. Bérenger but without the latter! Now, Mr. Bérenger does not seem to be disturbed by the verbal gaffes of Mr. Roshi Bhadain and claims that these do not affect at all his “natural optimism” in view of a general consensus on the issue of “means to be set up to crack down illicit wealth”. As early as on Thursday 26th October last, the leader of the MMM had stated in no uncertain terms that his party (the MMM) was open to discussions on the issue. However, Mr. Bérenger is right on one aspect: that there is an almost unanimous rejection of the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. To date, only Rezistans Ek Alternativ has stated that they are in favour of the new piece of legislation. The MMM, the Mauritius Labour Party and even the Mouvement Patriotique (led by MMM dissident Mr. Alan Ganoo) have all expressed concern regarding the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. For once, the Mauritius Labour Party has surprised many. The party has come up with a “Position Paper” on the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill. Is it the effect of Mr. Rama Valayden, who has recently joined the party? It should be recalled how the party established several working commissions following the adherence of another Rama, Mr. Rama Sithanen in the late 1990’s. The Mauritius Labour Party takes the trouble to explain that a Position Paper “is simply a tool to enhance debate on a parliamentary subject in order for the Republic to come to the right conclusion”. This is reminiscent of other times when the MMM would have presented a well-documented paper on a national issue. Today, its leader prefers having informal chats! The Position Paper, which is well documented, proposes the following measures: that a Select Committee of Parliament should after wide consultations with the public at large, the legal profession and civil society, review the existing legal framework and come up with cross-party proposals on consolidation of the law to address specific crimes and the proceeds thereof; that persons responsible for implementing or enforcing the law are not only independent and impartial but are seen to be independent and impartial; that the  bill,  as  it  is,  must  be  circulated  followed  by  a  wide  debate  on  all  its  direct  and unintended consequences which are explained to the nation at large; that the  bill  must  not  be  debated  before  the  National  Assembly  before  any  extensive debate and that the  bill  cannot  stand  without  the  amendment  to  the  constitution  and that the only way is to go through a referendum. On the other hand, dissenting voices have now been heard from the ranks of the majority. MSM MP Mr. Sudesh Rughoobar was the first to express his reserves regarding “transfer of responsibilities ( the Asset Recovery Unit) from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to the Financial Intelligence Unit” and the “inscription on properties pending a decision of the Supreme court”. The meeting of the politburo of the MSM, followed by that of the central committee, is likely to be hot. Mr. Rughoobar is not the only one who intends to take up the matter at the level of the party headed by Mr. Pravind Jugnauth. Another MSM MP Mr. Bashir Jahangeer has publicly expressed his disagreement regarding some aspects of the bill. So far, the Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth has not made any public statement on the whole issue. However, according to an article published in Le Defi Quotidien on Thursday, we learn that he is following the matter closely. Meanwhile, the incorrigible Mr. Roshi Bhadain has made a controversial statement at the 6th Conference of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) at St. Petersburg, Russia at the beginning of this week. Presenting the Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Bill at this conference, the Minister stated “(…) a lot has been said on Asset Recovery. It is a fact, however, that such procedures are primarily based on post-conviction orders. If there is no conviction there is no recovery”.  But later in his discourse, he made a Parthian shot at the DPP by mentioning about  “(…) problems faced by small island developing states, with a low population, where those in the influential strata of society know each other.” Mr Badhain went a step further when he said that “It so happens, that the current DPP is the only brother of a senior politician from the same party as the former Prime Minister (…)  now, the ICAC, is also investigating the DPP for having committed a suspected corruption offence. The DPP has refused to answer ICAC’s questions and has sought the protection of the Court for an injunction to prevent ICAC from further investigating him”. In some ways, Mr, Bérenger is right in placing the whole matter in the hands of Sir Anerood Jugnauth, although his move does smell political opportunism. The Prime Minister is undoubtedly the only person who can cut the Gordian knot. Resistance to the bill is coming not only from the opposition, the MSM but also from the PMSD (through MP/PPS Mr. Salim Abbas Mamode) and the Muvman Liberater (through MP Sangeet Fowdar). In a mind-blowing article penned by G. Sampath and published in the Hindu recently, the author makes some observations about good governance as follows: “ The term ‘governance’ was first used — in the sense in which it is deployed today — by the World Bank in a 1989 report on African economies. Trying to account for the failure of its Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), the World Bank put the blame on a “crisis of governance.” The author adds that: “ But ‘crisis of governance’ doesn’t convey much unless one defines ‘governance’. The World Bank initially defined it simply as “the exercise of political power to manage a nation’s affairs”. This early definition is quite indicative of the animating logic and future discursive career of governance: it is silent on the legitimacy or otherwise of the political power in question. So whether the Bank’s client was a democracy or a dictatorship didn’t matter. What mattered for governance is that efficient management must trump politics. Efficient management, just to be clear, means the withdrawal of the state in favour of the market”. G. Sampath warns each and everyone: “ If they misbehave, the stick of repression is an ever-present threat. Democracy without politics, and citizenship without rights — these are the twin pillars of good governance as it’s advocated today. The beauty of it is that everyone seems to love it”. Have we started loving “good governance” also?