Do good economics make for bad politics? Even if much hinges on what one expects from the State the answer has to be no. To the outside observer, our economic performance is respectable, if not impressive. Most of our African neighbours still look up to us as a shining beacon of political and economic stability. Little do they know that the beacon is suffering from severe bouts of uncertainty. Globalization is often cited as the principal cause of this malady. The problem with this excuse, of course, is that most of the world is in a similar situation. Are our perceptions skewed or is the situation genuinely dire?

When it comes to the basic prerogatives of a Welfare State, Mauritius seems to be fulfilling its responsibilities. The quality of the services notwithstanding, education and health are still free and there has been no talk whatsoever of privatization as could be expected from a government which many perceive as being pro-private sector. Despite all the noise about social security reform not much has yet come out of this so that pensions are still being paid out across the board. Unemployment figures may be high yet the newspapers are full of job offers indicating that anyone who really wants to work can do so. Low-cost housing projects for the needy are mushrooming all over the country. So far so good.

If these are anything to go by, which they are, the government has not defaulted on its core responsibilities. Yet, the zeitgeist is that it has. Over and above the facile accusations of the type, ?the bigger the BMWs get, the less the politicians care about the people?, there is a genuine feeling that too small a portion of the population is getting a share of the proverbial national cake. This is making the opposition?s rhetoric on the democratization of the economy all the more alluring. Whether or not they have a plan for its implementation is not all that relevant to those who want to believe in a more egalitarian society.

Mauritians, you see, have become more demanding. Although many choose to harp on about the economic ramifications of globalization, its social implications are just as far-reaching and are having an immense impact on the way we work and play. The arrival of the consumer society has aggravated certain ills that have always existed. The gap between the rich and the poor, for example, has become more marked if not necessarily wider, because the latter now aspire to the same luxuries as the former. Our tastes have evolved as have our expectations. The Welfare State can?t possibly keep up with these.

The trouble with this is that the State is being apportioned with a large part of the blame for not putting satellite television in every home. It shouldn?t be so. Once consumerism has become entrenched then so too will other tenets of capitalism. One can?t seriously expect to enjoy all the perks of competition and laissez-faire without having to also deal with the downsides that accompany them. You just have to deal with this way of life. Unless, of course, you?re ready to consistently debunk it and live your life accordingly.

Like it or not, the current climate of uncertainty can be attributed as much to the societal implications of globalization as to its economics. If the State can?t resist the changes bought about by this liberalization, it can try to ensure that development is sustainable. Our African neighbours would be sad to see that, up till now, it has failed.