ANAËLLE JEAN
Just when we thought we had reached rock bottom, we are confronted with a new abyss of indignity. The arrest of ‘Rann Nou Later’ movement members while they were peacefully protesting is not just a new abyss of indignity but a troubling reflection of how lawful demonstrations are increasingly met with unwarranted force.
“Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part,” said Hubert H. Humphrey, former Vice-President of the United States of America. This statement resonates deeply in light of the recent arrest of individuals who were peacefully protesting. Their detention highlights a troubling trend where peaceful demonstrations are increasingly met with unwarranted force. This incident, while potentially subject to varying interpretations, underscores a deeper and troubling erosion of our democratic values. The events of August 27 may be seen not merely as isolated acts of injustice but as part of a broader pattern that threatens the very principles upon which our democracy stands.
The crux of this article is not to debate the merits of the protest itself but to spotlight the unwarranted use of force against peaceful protesters. The right to protest is fundamental, and the manner in which this right is suppressed is deeply concerning.
It’s crucial to note that the ‘Rann Nou Later’ protest was reported to be entirely peaceful, with no acts of violence or property damage from the protesters. This peaceful nature distinguishes their demonstration from others that might involve violence or damage, which could warrant a different law enforcement approach. Given this context, important questions arise about whether the force used was necessary and proportionate. While the courts will ultimately determine the legality and appropriateness of the actions taken, the video which was publicly available shockingly showed that the use of force was substantial. This invites a broader discussion on how peaceful assemblies should be managed. Peaceful assembly is a fundamental democratic right, and it is essential to ensure that such rights are protected rather than penalized. The repeated use of force in this context, if proven to be unwarranted, might set a troubling precedent, potentially discouraging lawful dissent and impacting democratic freedoms. This issue also raises concerns about whether current practices align with Mauritius’s international commitments to uphold the right to peaceful assembly.
The Public Gathering Act (PGA) is clear: a public meeting is defined as “an assembly of 12 or more persons.” By keeping their protest under this limit, Devarajen Kanaksabee and his group adhered to the law. However, their peaceful assembly was disrupted. This raises significant concerns about the alignment of these actions with both domestic and international legal standards.
This troubling pattern isn’t just a local issue; it’s a violation of commitments Mauritius has made on the global stage.
Mauritius has long been a signatory to international agreements that uphold the right to protest, such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which recognizes the right of peaceful assembly, with restrictions only permissible under strict legal conditions in the interests of public safety, order, or the rights of others. Similarly, the 1981 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights echoes these principles, and these commitments are reflected in section 13 of the Mauritian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of assembly and association. Mauritius’s commitments under these agreements are designed to protect peaceful assembly, but recent actions suggest a troubling deviation from these global standards.
These legal frameworks are designed to ensure that citizens can express their views without fear of retribution. However, when we turn to recent events, it becomes clear that these protections are not always honored in practice. The recent charges of “rogue and vagabond” against members of the ‘Rann Nou Later’ movement under Section 28 of the Criminal Code (Supplementary) Act are not an isolated incident but part of a troubling pattern. This legal tool has been repeatedly used to target individuals exercising their right to protest, raising significant concerns about whether constitutional and international safeguards are being respected. Such repeated application of the “rogue and vagabond” charge to suppress lawful dissent suggests a misuse of laws intended to protect public order. If this trend continues unchallenged, it could foster an environment where citizens are increasingly fearful of participating in protests, ultimately eroding the very foundations of our democratic society.
The PGA seeks to reconcile the right to assemble with the need for public order. It allows smaller gatherings, such as the one held by the “Rann Nou Later” movement, to proceed without prior police notification, thereby enabling citizens to express their opinions without unnecessary disruption. However, even these legally permissible demonstrations are now facing scrutiny, as participants are being subjected to criminal charges.
This shift towards stringent enforcement stands in stark contrast to the practices observed in other established democracies.
In comparing Mauritius’s approach with that of other democracies, it’s clear that there are notable differences in how the right to protest is treated. In the United Kingdom, for instance, while organizers of larger protests are encouraged to notify the police, this is generally for logistical coordination rather than seeking permission. The emphasis is on balancing the right to protest with public safety, a principle that is also enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. By contrast, the heavy-handed response seen in Mauritius suggests a shift towards more stringent enforcement that may not align with these international best practices.
Although law enforcement plays a vital role in maintaining order, seeing people fight for their rights only to be forcibly dragged away by the police is a scene that raises important questions about proportionality and respect for civil liberties. It’s crucial that any use of force is both proportional and justified in accordance with the laws.
While it is important to consider that authorities may have acted with intentions of maintaining public order, the response to this lawful protest raises significant concerns.
The core of democracy is the ability to voice opposition and advocate for change without fear.
Arresting those who operate within the law, if proven to be unjustified, could send a chilling message: no form of dissent, however lawful, is safe. It is crucial that the actions of law enforcement are transparent and justifiable, to maintain public trust in our democratic institutions.
Let’s revisit our Constitution: “Mauritius shall be a sovereign democratic State.” This is not just a formal statement; it is the foundation of our nation’s identity. Sovereignty means the absolute independence and integrity of our state—our people, our territory, and our government. When our leaders fail to respect these principles, they undermine the very sovereignty they are sworn to protect.
Here’s the hard truth: a communist regime or dictatorship is not the real tragedy. The real tragedy is a façade of democracy—a system that pretends to serve the people but only does so in name. A country that holds elections but systematically erodes rights and freedoms between them is more dangerous because it lulls us into complacency. We might think we are free while our freedoms are being quietly stripped away.
Although elections are a cornerstone of democracy, it would be a misnomer to think that democracy is fulfilled by voting alone; true democracy requires constant vigilance and active participation from citizens everyday. This ongoing involvement ensures that our leaders remain accountable and that democratic principles are upheld. Without ongoing oversight, the principles of democracy risk being undermined, allowing leaders to govern without genuine accountability. Isn’t that what seems to be happening in Mauritius?
Relying solely on online expression of frustration risks reducing our sovereignty to a hollow concept. To preserve its full meaning, we must also engage in constructive action and dialogue, working together to hold our leaders accountable in ways that are both effective and respectful. Our leaders’ authority comes from us, and it can be taken away by us.
The events of August 27, and the subsequent handling of the protest, illustrate why we are witnessing ‘Yet a New Low’ in our commitment to democratic principles. This should serve as a catalyst for re-evaluating our engagement with democracy and civil rights.
We must act to protect our democracy and sovereignty. Hold our leaders accountable, not just on election day but every day. Only then can we ensure Mauritius remains a true sovereign democratic state where the rights and freedoms of all citizens are upheld.
“Although elections are a cornerstone of democracy, it would be a misnomer to think that democracy is fulfilled by voting alone; true democracy requires constant vigilance and active participation from citizens everyday. This ongoing involvement ensures that our leaders remain accountable and that democratic principles are upheld. Without ongoing oversight, the principles of democracy risk being undermined, allowing leaders to govern without genuine accountability. Isn’t that what seems to be happening in Mauritius?”