A brainchild of the Labour government of the 70s, the IRA was designed to curtail the threat of socialism in Mauritius. As the students’ movement that swept the European capitals, reached our shores, the rulers of the day eyed the ‘communist threat’ with increasing paranoia. But amazingly, this period of our history, with its state of emergency, lack of elections, and quasi-totalitarian aspect of the Labour/PMSD government, is always given little attention. What happened between independence and the present day is often absent in the Mauritian narrative. The period, which defines the modern nation, is seemingly better forgotten. And the IRA is buried in this collective amnesia.

The Act itself is a catch-22. Although it recognises the right to strike, it makes it so difficult for workers to take industrial action as to render the it almost impossible. A minister, who in theory is no more than a senior civil servant, is given extraordinary powers to refer any dispute to arbitration. If such a route is taken, any action is declared illegal, and the workers can be dismissed. The law lay down compulsory labour provisions, against ILO (International Labour Organisation) Convention 105 on forced labour.

Thus if, say, workers decide to strike over conditions which endanger their life, personal safety or health, the government has the right to force them back into their workplace by declaring their action illegal. The IRA gives employers an unfair advantage over labour rights from the beginning. If the Labour Party is so concerned about democratisation of the economy, this should have been one of the first things it condemned. Instead, it has been as pathetic as the government it loves to criticise. Their voices drop to the same inaudible drone as their opponents. When it comes to labour rights, they are equally sycophantic to big business as this present MSM/MMM coalition.

Worldwide decline

Just how the IRA lasted to this day, and survived six governments, is incomprehensible. But here was the opportunity for change before what looks to be a competitive election. Rather, in his 21st Century trademark arrogant fashion, the Prime Minister declares that the law will be reviewed during the next mandate, as if his re-election is a foregone conclusion. In the meantime, workers have to live in this long-lasting repressive legislative quagmire. How ironic that the government found time for the Muslim Personal Law instead of the IRA.

However, industrial actions themselves are on the decline worldwide. This year, Britain celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the end of the miners’ strike. It has to be seen in the context of the larger movement of the workers’ struggle in that country. Margaret Thatcher inherited a country in turmoil. In 1978, the year before her election as Prime Minister, all the unions went on strike, in what became known as the ‘winter of discontent’. She came to power, vowing to crush them into submission. The 80s saw further strikes in mining, printing and the docks, accompanied by an unusual level of violence on the part of both the state and the workers. The miners’ strike in 1985, which lasted for a year, gave Thatcher the chance to show her uncompromising style, and the workers were eventually defeated.

Ireland, by contrast, having learnt the lesson from their neighbours, changed tack and approached their workers as partners or the third way agreement. Every three or four years, the government and the unions sit down and negotiate wages and working conditions. The Irish government took this approach in 1987 and there have been five such programs to date. Sadly, in Mauritius, there is a lack of negotiation, where the government has the final decision over salaries.

Ireland provides a good example of the evolution of industrial action. As the economy became increasingly privatised, the number of strikes fell drastically. Interestingly, the strike frequency in the private sector decreased from 82% in the 1960 to 1969 decade to 55% between 1996 and 2002 according to the Central Statistics Office (CSO). In the public sector, the contrary happened, increasing from 18% to 45%. However, in 1996/2002 timeframe, most of the workers involved were from the public sector. This reflects the nature of Ireland’s high-tech economy. As IT workers are rarely unionised, there are no risks of strikes on their side. Those that go on strikes are usually in the low-skill sectors of the economy.

Less tolerance

The same pattern applies for the entire Western world when measured in the number of days lost per 1000 employees. While Greece lost 6316 days annually between 1986 and 1990, a decade later, the figures had fallen to 29. The UK lost only 21 days while Ireland’s workers refused to work for 91 days between 1996 and 2000. This has much to do with increased prosperity in these regions but it also hides the effects of the private ownership of the economy. Multinational companies are much less tolerant of strikes and they have more room to sack employees than the state.

As Mauritius becomes increasingly privatised, the country will also follow the same pattern. For this reason alone, a piece of legislation like the IRA has no place in a modern democracy. On average, people work more than they used to, ending up with less spare time. The right to strike is there to protect workers not only from unacceptable working conditions but it gives them a bargaining power too when they have to negotiate with their bosses.

The IRA has long past its sell by date and it should have no place in Mauritius if we are to have a vibrant democracy. Instead of concentrating on ‘winning formulas’ or ‘democratisation of the economy’, terms as empty as the politicians shouting them, a review of our labour laws would be more constructive.

<B>Diren VALAYDEN</B> <I>Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</I>