[Blog] 100 days and the tyranny of the status quo

A little more than 100 days have elapsed since the new government calling itself the Alliance for Change came into power in Mauritius. The concept of 100 days is usually used by pundits to make an assessment of the initial performance of the new political masters. Some appreciate the measures being taken whereas others point to stagnation.

It is important to place this debate in a theoretical framework.  In 1984 , the famous neo liberal economist, Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose, wrote a book in which they developed the concept of the 'Tyranny of the Status Quo’. According to them, in a democracy a newly elected government has a window of opportunity of six to nine months to bring about transformational changes. Passing this period, "the supposed mandate will vanish".

This has nothing to do with ideology or belonging to the left or the right. It is in the very nature of administration and government. The Friedmans referred to the performance of the conservative President, Ronald Reagan, who, at the initial stages of his mandate in 1980, brought about tectonic changes such as reducing taxes by 25 %, slashing the top income tax from 70 % to 50 % and significantly diminishing the rate of public spending.  After that, eye-popping measures failed to be initiated as "inertia set in". In the same vein, the socialist President, Francois Miterand,  after his historic election in 1981, pushed forward a slew of revolutionary measures such as nationalisation of big  banks and  some  industrial groups, of strategic importance, lowering the retirement age to 60, combating unemployment by expanding the public sector, announcing the reduction of hours of work to 35 per week by 1985, etc. Honing the importance of such foundational measures, especially with regards to nationalisation, he stated in a press conference that nationalisation would give to France "les outils du siècle prochain et les vingt dernières années de celui-ci" (Le President, Frank- Olivier Gesbert, 1990). Soon , however,  he had to give up on new  measures  as conservative forces within his own party, calling themselves pragmatists, rallied to rein down the sails of transformation.

In Mauritius, it seems that the first 60-0 government grasped the importance of the necessity of bringing transformational changes during the very first months of their mandate. They hastened to bring major constitutional amendments that make it quasi-impossible to clamp a state of emergency, to postpone general elections and cancel by-elections. Within a short span of time, they set up key institutions like the State Trading Corporation, the Indian Ocean Islands Commission and so on. Major reforms were undertaken to redress the economy and chart out a path for economic growth that resulted in the miracle of the eighties. But the government did not last long as it imploded in just 9 months .

The question is: would the appetite for groundbreaking changes continue to be whetted had there not been the implosion? Not very certain as after the period of 9 months or so, the "status quo tyrants" , according to Milton and Rose Friedman, tend to regroup and  gather force to clog the machinery. In their viewpoint,  the

resistance comes from what they call an " iron triangle " composed of beneficiaries (lobbies), bureaucrats and politicians... The defeated forces reorganize and from there on little gets accomplished ". The honeymoon period is over.

It is hoped that the present government which is still enjoying a period of grace would not delay too much in initiating the promised fundamental changes without letting precious opportunities slip by. As Mitterand said: "Quand on est porteur d'une espérance, qu'on a gagnée sur des engagements, qu'on les respecte..."

Azize Bankur