In the feverish pre-electoral mood of the last General Elections, every citizen, media person and politician seemed to be in agreement that old people were a prized category of the Mauritian population, growing in numbers and representing a magnificently instrumental voting force. Articles and commentaries on the ageing population bore a positive narrative, with economists’ gloomy actuarial warnings about pensions draining away our national resources relegated to tiny vignettes unworthy of anyone’s attention. That was then. Somehow, the entire narrative has now been turned on its head in just a few short months, in more ways than one.
Firstly, and suddenly, it is no longer de bon ton to speak of old people as subjects to be won over, incentivised, or otherwise seduced. Today, they are a problem to be attended to, the bane of economists, a rubik cube to be tackled. Hardly a day goes by that we do not see or hear of some reference to the old/elderly/pensioners/demographic crisis/global challenge/ senior citizens/productivity gap/BRP/ageing population/fiscal (un)sustainability, and the like. Today, the tactic has shifted from seduction to compassion, even pity. Time, which passes quickly, will tell us the extent and depth of Mauritius’ commitment to being a “caring” state, admired in many international fora for having stood its ground (against the World Bank and the IMF) and maintained universal coverage of social welfare. Successive governments, after all, have been able to claim legitimacy in the public eye through the maintenance and strengthening of a welfare orientation (Prasad et al., 2013)1. Even Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz (2011)2 praised Mauritius and held us up as an example for achieving a balance between economic progress and a healthy system of social welfare.
Secondly, a committee – a Commission of Experts – is now set up to review and possibly reform the pensions system from a fiscal and actuarial perspective with assistance from the World Bank and the IMF, mind you, the very same forces that have consistently pressurized governments against financing the welfare state. Some of us might see this as a device to demonstrate good will, a acte de bonne volonté, an openness to reconsider the whole matter of pensions. Or it might be a political damage-control mechanism. Still, one has to wonder, though, what could such a committee, choc-full of economists and statisticians, come up with other than confirming doomsday narratives of an “unsustainable” pension system, an unfair burden on the young and future generations, a productivity and skills crisis, and so forth? What you gonna do, they will say, a population that is ageing simply can’t afford to dish out money to people who are not producing it. Pena swa, they say. Because, well, there are not enough people producing money. Simple math. And this leads to the third change: it conjures up images of a society full of slow, white-haired old-timers having cruises and holidays at someone else’s expense. Or, a bunch of elderly requiring protection. It creates resentment. And resentment harbours intolerance, impatience, and a feeling of separation, instead of inclusion. Why would we resent such an image, though? Is a pension not supposed to be about enjoying the fruits of your contributions? Simple math too. Does the quantum of contribution have to be quantifiable to the last penny? Ought measures, or constructs, of productivity not include social/familial/community usefulness, or indirect productivity, such as helping with childcare and housework so that sons and daughters may “go out” to work in the offices of financial institutions and BPOs, in hotels and trade, or in the small business sector? I must humbly take exception to the dire predictions about population shrinkage and growing strains on national resources, and the “unsustainability” of the welfare state. In a 2019 report on the ageing workforce, I concluded that the productivity and economic success of Mauritius will be increasingly tied to that of older workers, and one key recommendation from the study was the promotion of healthy and fulfilling activities such as mentoring, social and community involvement, and micro enterprising, and generally any kind of activity that would promote the valueing of all citizens, thus also contributing to intergenerational understanding.3
A particularly insightful UNFPA post on the 2023 State of the World Population bears an interesting title : “Too many people? Too few? It’s time to end the population alarmist narrative”4, and it presents the deliberations of an expert panel (quite the fashion…) at the launch of the said report. This panel included : the NGO sector, academia, government, researchers from different disciplines, demographers, statisticians, experts in policy, gender, human rights and humanitarian affairs. A whole different sort of panel, you would agree, demonstrating a clear multi-stakeholder, multi-perspective approach to coming to grips with the question of demographic changes. I shall share here some sections from some of the speeches:
– H.E. Dr. Haifa Abu Ghazaleh: (…) Population must be viewed and dealt with from a human rights perspective with a novel approach that puts people at its centre. ”
– Dr Ahmed Al Mandhari, WHO Regional Director for the Eastern Mediterranean : (…) our world cannot only be measured in terms of population size, fertility rate, mortality and morbidity. We have to expand our understanding of how we measure the population beyond numbers.”
Another type of change concerns the use of that magic word, “sustainability”, which is now finding a novel subject to defend (or attack, as the case may be). It is “unsustainable”, they say, to even think about maintaining pensions in the manner we have been doing so far. How timely and handy, and how visually evocative! When “sustainability” is the key to everything, then naturally its opposite must be condemned, done away with, and fast! This is the narrative that we are being fed, by a brand of World Bank/IMF economists and statisticians, by the media, and by politicians who just beat the drum of powerlessness (pena swa) and never like to stick their necks out too much. It is a phenomenon that is made into a problem by construeing it as a problem, much like “skills mismatch”. These sorts of social constructions are made through the lens of power relations and tend to overlook not only the true and underlying reasons of phenomena but also the potential for positive opportunities to springboard or leapfrog onto better, more creative solutions. Just think: if we pursue with the “problem” construct, we shall soon be witnessing a whittling away of other elements within the welfarist developmental model, including education, health, safety and other safeguards of citizens’ wellbeing!
But what is this expansion of understanding that Dr Al Mandhari is suggesting, whereby we could take a decisive stand and build a thriving society and economy regardless of ageing? Can this “thing” be understood as a potential asset to society, an opportunity to be embraced? At the very least, can the paranoia be de-fused and toned down somewhat? One person (like myself) couldn’t possibly have the answer right here, right now, but surely the narrative could shift away from demographic determinism? We need other experts to guide us in an innovative direction, a unique one suited to our vision of a society. We need cross-disciplined academics, political economists, gerontologists, and civil society change agents to broaden the definition of demographic changes, and to close in, with equanimity and vision, on the basic question of What Do We Want For Ourselves As a Society? That is the very basic first step, the fundamental question, in any strategising exercise. There is much power in a question, and a problem may even be seen to be a solution, to something yet unthought of. Judging by the 60-0 free pass we gave them, we have given our consent for a national agenda that includes equal opportunity, not just for its own intrinsic value, but as a developmental pillar, such that every citizen will both contribute to and benefit from national development. Granted, this is an example of innovative visioning, provided it was sincerely crafted. Now, if other aspects of the national agenda are meanwhile discovered as being in contradiction with the first, this requires a careful and sensitive balancing act, one that the population having handed a 60-0 expects those in leadership to excel in, instead of being served simplistic, canned and clearly indigestible solutions and pena swa attitudes.
Precisely, when we are done with the “what” part, a leader moves on to the “how” phase. For this, we require leadership of the strategic sort, the modern, enlightened and balanced sort, one that would understand the implications and consequences of every action, that would find strategies and actions based on unique solutions, the outside-the-box or no-box type. Can anyone at the top of an organisation, be that a government, a company, a parastatal, an NGO, pull this off? What sort of leader carves a new and unique solution out of a problem, and dares to broaden a narrow understanding of a handed-down issue? Who indeed will build a unique, refreshing cathedral-like vision of society and invite everyone to amenn so blok? See how companies are adapting their leadership to modern-day workforces: Gone are the days of top-down, boss-knows-best styles. Could national leaders be thus inspired and shift the old narrative through the adoption of participative, empathic, emotionally-intelligent approaches in making sense of changes, not as problems but as jumping-boards to far better ideas? Dare they?
Dr. Anita Ramgutty
anitaramgutty.com
References
- Prasad, N., Hypher, N. and Gerecke, M. (2013) Seeing Big: Transformative Social Policies in Small States. Research Paper 2013-3. Geneva: UNRISD.
- Stiglitz, J. (2011) The Mauritius Miracle. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-mauritius-miracle-2011-03?barrier=accesspaylog (accessed on 30.08.21).
3.National Productivity and Competitiveness Council,Report of Ageing Workforce Opportunities and Challenges
4.Too Many People? Too Few? It’s Time to end the population alarmist narratives. https://arabstates.unfpa.org/en/news/too-many-people-too-few-its-time-end-population-alarmist-narratives
