re-membering1 movements

trade union movements & new social movements in neo-liberal

mauritius2

prishani naidoo & ahmed veriava [email protected] [email protected]

1 For a full account of our use of this term and the methodology behind this project, please consult annex 1. 2 This is part of the product of a bigger research project in Mauritius and South Africa, facilitated by the Centre for Civil Society, University of Natal-Durban. For a full report covering both countries, consult www.red.org.za

introduction

We’ve just started getting our first briefing from Lindsey and Dani at the Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT) offices when the telephone rings. A few minutes later Georges bursts in, a flurry of Creole spewing forth. Would we mind continuing our meeting with Lindsey as Dani is going to accompany Georges to Pamplemousses where workers have just returned to work from tea and been told that the factory is closed and they no longer have jobs? Not at all, we say, but can’t we go with to Pamplemousses? No questions asked, we hop in a taxi with Georges and Dani on our way to Pamplemousses, which we’ve only seen beautiful pictures of in tour guides advertising the island’s famous botanical gardens. Arriving at an old building serving as the labour and pension office, we meet the faces of mainly young and old women sitting in rows waiting to lay their statements of complaint against George Sham, their employer until this morning, who has miraculously disappeared from Mauritius with no prior warning of the factory’s closure nor payment of their outstanding wages. Uncertainty, worry, despair… how do we approach them? Georges seems to know some of the workers – this is his village – and makes the first move. Soon we’re hearing stories from all sides. In broken English and Creole workers tell us how they’ve been left stranded without money, without jobs and without any knowledge of where their food for the next day is going to come. They don’t belong to a union. Old women with husbands and children afraid that they won’t be able to find other work as employers prefer people younger than 40 these days, young girls who look like they should be at school… What do we think they should do? Some want to start looking for alternative work immediately. Others want to find out what Georges and Dani can do. Some want to go home and start making arrangements for Maha Shivaratri3 Are there only women in this factory? No, but mainly women. We find out that the foreman (a man) is around and still has the keys to the factory. Another man hangs around on the outskirts. He’s not going to hang around here. He has to find work today because his family needs to eat. He leaves. It’s suggested that everyone returns to the factory, that the foreman re-opens the factory and that all workers meet later today. Someone says that this is only 1 of 3 of George Sham’s factories that have closed today. Georges should assist to make contact with the other workers in the factories which are in other places on the island. It’s agreed and we all leave to the factory. The factory is really a sweatshop – loose hanging wires, poor ventilation, leaking toilets, poor lighting and seats which cannot be conducive to long hours of sewing. We look around quickly and leave to sit outside with Georges and Dani as we could be arrested for being on a

3 We were in Mauritius for the period of the Hindu festival, Mahashivaratri, three days during which the entire island is swept up in celebrations in praise of Lord Shiva, the Hindu deity symbolising creation. The majority of the Mauritian population is of Indian origin and of the Hindu faith. For these 3 days and a few before and after, you can go nowhere on the island without seeing colourful chariots being carried by groups of people dressed in white making their pilgrimage to the sacred site in Beau Bassin, where most of the celebrations happen. Television programmes are dedicated to the celebrations, clubs and village associations hang up banners wishing Hindus well in their prayers, and even McDonalds in Port Louis had a banner that could not be missed, giving their good wishes to Hindus!!

2 worksite organising unofficially. Silently we’re glad that we’re out here where the heat is a little more bearable than inside the sweatshop… The meeting begins, everyone huddled close together outside the sweatshop. There is general agreement that the factory should be kept open and that there should be workers in the factory all night. Older women raise concerns that preparations for Shivaratri will be disturbed; what will their husbands say if they’re not at home all night? what about their families’ needs? It’s agreed that workers will organise themselves in groups and occupy the factory in shifts. Workers will also immediately go out into the village to let people know of the factory occupation, to explain the problem, and to get support from the community and husbands in particular. Georges and Dani will help to contact the media and will get in touch with a trade union working in the sector. They will also make contact with workers in the other factories. We take notes. The meeting ends and workers disperse into the community… we notice reels of cotton hidden under the arms of some of them as they leave for home. (24/2/2003).

The Company Gardens have been taken over by red, black and white banners and posters publicizing the hunger strike of the White Sands drivers who are now on the 8th day of their action against unfair sackings. A makeshift shelter stands at the 1 entrance, radio blasting from inside. We make our way in – it’s hot and though the levels of energy amongst the men and few women who lie and sit on the many mattresses laid down seem sapped, there’s a low buzz of conversations on cellphones and with each other, interrupted every now and then by the radio, whose volume is turned up everytime the strike is mentioned. Dani knows people here. She introduces us to the 2 union negotiators as South Africans and Ahmed explains why we’re here. We’re a bit uneasy to tire them some more with our questions. They look really exhausted and have been giving interviews all day but oblige us anyway, really happy to hear that we’re from South Africa. They tell us about White Sands Tours, a sub-company of a bigger tour operator called Island Drive Tours, whose drivers they represent. Since June last year they have been in negotiations with the company about the working conditions of the drivers. While in negotiations, the company imposed changes in conditions that were subject to these negotiations but were not in line with agreements. From 1 December 2002, a decision was taken to reduce salaries by between Rs5000 and Rs10 000 and this was effected in the salary cheques received in January without giving workers any prior warning. On 30 January workers went to the employer to demand an explanation. He called a meeting at which he told workers that they would be dismissed if they didn’t agree with the cuts. He suspended 57 workers on the spot. Every worker was called before a disciplinary committee. After this, he sacked 39 workers without any compensation, even though he acknowledged that he was at fault for not informing them of the cuts. He does not want to recognise the union and he does not want to negotiate because he says workers went on strike while negotiating. Since the 6 August the drivers have been on hunger strike here, together with the 2 union negotiators and the wife of one of the drivers. But, not all the drivers have been on strike – of the 63 drivers at White Sands, 3 were not union members and of the 57 workers who voted for the strike, 5 left the union and went back to the employer to apologise, and 13 were reintegrated into the workforce after the disciplinary hearings. Since this morning, the Minister of Labour and the

3 Acting Prime Minister, Paul Berenger, have intervened and right now another negotiator, Mr Jack Bizlall, is in negotiations with the employer because he won’t recognise the union. They also tell us of how the law has failed workers and how they have done all at their means to try to get redress. And, of how politicians play a ‘Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde role’ with unions, and how there would have been no intervention from the Ministers had they not gone on strike and had the other trade union federations not supported them. They speak of the tremendous support they’ve received from all trade unions and trade union federations in Mauritius and are excited about a rally that will happen tomorrow, in which all the trade unions and federations would be participating in a solidarity front for them. They ask about our struggles in South Africa, we thank them, wish them strength in their struggle, and make our way back to the LPT office. (26/02/2003).

These 2 accounts of times during our short stay in Mauritius bear evidence of the failure of the law and the traditional trade union form to effectively address the needs of workers in the new sectors of work under neoliberalism. This seems to be a recurring pattern in the history of Mauritius, becoming more frequent more recently, particularly as the organising strength of traditional Mauritian civil society declines. Workers as well as groups resisting the various effects of neoliberal policies have resisted the implementation of these policies in various ways outside of the traditional trade union movement structures. These responses have also occurred in the context of the failure of the traditional movements to adequately deal with changing conditions. This paper is an exploration of the responses within Mauritian civil society to the introduction of neoliberal policies, with particular reference to the traditional trade union movement and new forms of organising that have emerged in response to the effects of these policies e.g. the housing movement. In particular, it will explore the relationship between the failure of traditional movements (like the trade union movement) to respond to the changes in the economy, labour and society generally brought about by neoliberalism, and the emergence of new formations within communities fighting against the effects of the first attempts at privatisation, casualisation of labour, and cuts in social spending. It will argue that it is in the spaces created by these new social movements that the potential for real alternatives to capitalist development are possible. It will also, however, point to the ways in which certain older traditions, styles and ideologies within these movements persist that both positively and negatively influence the development of these movements.

4 background4

Mauritius5 gained its full independence in 1968, after centuries of colonial rule first under the Dutch, then the French and finally the British. The majority of the local Mauritian population was excluded from participation in elections, with property ownership and literacy being requirements for formal political participation. This meant that it was largely a small local bourgeoisie (mainly white) that held political control in Mauritius under British rule. Although full independence from Britain only came in 1968, there had already been attempts at drawing the local population into some forums of public participation in governance and decision- making at a local level from as early as the 1930s.

In the absence of formal organisations and political representation, the majority of the Mauritian poor, experiencing worsening conditions of poverty and hardship beginning in the 1930s, began to resist these conditions in spontaneous mass riots and strikes. These occurred in 1937-38, 1943 and the 1970s. After the 1937-38 riots and strikes, the government passed a law allowing the first partial sort of trade unionism. After the 1943 strike, these laws were amended and the first national trade unions were allowed. It was also a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry set up to look into the causes of the riots that more local level structures, such as village councils and associations be established to allow people spaces to voice their grievances (Rajni Lallah, interview).

During the 1930s, the Labour Party (LP) began to emerge and was formally launched on 23 February 1936 “to defend the rights of labour as opposed to that of capital which they felt were over-represented in the Legislative Council” (Teelock, 2001: 358). Although the LP had this overt commitment, its leadership was largely middle-class and its early leaders came mainly from the intellectual middle class. The independence movement, which emerged in the following years, was very closely linked, if not driven in its early years, by the labour movement in Mauritius. In 1968, the LP, with the support of the Mauritian Labour Congress (MLC), became the first party to win elections under independence. In the years after independence, the LP was seen to lose its commitment to “advancing the interests of the working class” as it assumed the business of governing in partnership with more middle class interests.

4 This very brief introduction to the political history in Mauritius is by no means comprehensive. Instead, it gives the reader the bare minimum necessary to understand the movements that we have interacted with. We have here neglected to look at the play of religion and culture in terms of the political system, for example, which further complicates a history full of other political parties and splits. The movements we have included in this study are, however, very different from and opposed to the communalist based political parties that base their political programmes on ethnic, religious, racial and other such differences. In our research, we did not find these issues come up, but we are sure that they must play themselves out in the trade union movement and other movements. This is perhaps another area for further study. 5 Mauritius has a population of 1.2 million (http:www.cleaclothes.org/publications/02-09- mauritius.htm). The last general election, held in September 2000, resulted in a victory for an opposition coalition, the Militant Mauritian Movement (MMM) and the Mauritian Socialist Movement (MSM). The current Prime Minister is Sir Anerood Jugnauth. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8393pf.htm)

5 The political situation in the country following independence came to be dominated by a new political party, the Movement Militant Mauricien (MMM). This began as “a small group of young, mainly western-educated, intellectuals in the 1960s. By the 1970s, it had become a tightly-knit and powerful organisation, with strong links with the trade union movement… The philosophy of the MMM was at first socialist in inspiration…The goal was the end of ‘class society’.” (Teelock, 2001: 399). The MMM held as its manifesto for governing the ‘Programme Gouvernementale’, which was a fairly redistributive economic policy programme (including plans for substantial nationalization), and a plan for the democratisation of all spheres of public life, including the encouragement of trade unionism. In terms of foreign policy, it placed the needs and interests of the local Mauritian people over those of the superpowers and neighbouring countries, such as South Africa. However, under the LP government, a state of emergency was declared under which there were to be no elections or political meetings until 1976. It was only in 1982 that the MMM came to political power in coalition with the Parti Socialiste Mauricien (PSM). The trade union that was to emerge and remain very close to the MMM at that time was the General Workers’ Federation (GWF).

During the period of the 1970s the MMM experienced a split amongst its own membership between those who were opposed to following the electoral route and those who supported it. It was from this split that a tendency called Lalit de Classe (Class Struggle) was to emerge and later become the party, Lalit. In 1981, a key figure in the second tendency, Jack Bizlall, left the MMM stating that he was “resigning from politics”, and continued to serve as a Minister of Parliament independent of any political party affiliation. At the same time, he began to organize a split in the GWF, with some workers leaving to form the Federation of Parastatal Bodies (FPBU), later to become the Federation of Progressive Unions (FPU), organising in the private sector mainly. Within the FPU, Bizlall then started organising a political committee for the federation, which within the space of 6-8 months became a political organisation called the Front Militant Progressive (FMP). This organisation was later to join with another split from Lalit, which had joined the Fourth International and called themselves the Organisation Militan Travayers (OMT), to form the Parti Militan Travayers (PMT).

Lalit tried to build a common political platform with the PMT on 2 occasions, in 1995 and 2000 around municipal by-elections, both times unsuccessfully. With this failure and the breakdown between the parties over privatisation in the All Workers’ Conference (AWC – see below), the PMT disappeared. Since 1995, then, the PMT has not really existed. In 2002, when a big scandal broke out around Air Mauritius, Jack Bizlall reappeared, organising 2 big meetings, which nothing came of. In 2003, while we were in Mauritius, Jack Bizlall was again in the news (see below). And, in a meeting of the GWF, which we attended, one of the calls from one of the unions present was for all unions of the GWF to join a rally being organized by Jack Bizlall for 1 May at which a new political movement would be being launched. This caused a lot of debate in the meeting and continually came up in interviews as there is a tradition in Mauritius of workers and unions all joining in one celebration of May Day that is not dominated by any one political party, to which families also come and participate. Many workers and unionists

6 felt that Jack Bizlall’s call was divisive and an attempt to gain political mileage out of a very important day in the lives of the Mauritian working class, and that he was not even being clear about what this new movement would look like or be about.

While electoral politics plays a big role in the lives of Mauritian people generally and is a highly contested space, this contestation also plays itself out in the trade union movement, as the various unions are played by various political parties and politicians (see below).

neoliberalism and Mauritius

The neoliberal agenda has entered Mauritius in various ways from the period of the LP government on. In the late 60s and early 70s, the LP government adopted a series of measures to combat unemployment, which was the biggest problem facing the Mauritian economy at the time. These included the establishment of import-substitution industries in areas such as food processing, cosmetics and chemicals (which was to lay the basis for a strong privately-led manufacturing sector with a guarantee that there would be no nationalisation in this sector), and the encouragement of labour-intensive, export-oriented industries. In 1970, the Export Processing Zone (EPZ) Act gave numerous incentives for the establishment of export-oriented industries such as tax incentives, exemptions from customs duties, more profit-friendly labour relations, the repatriation of profits and so on.

The EPZ, which is referred to commonly in Mauritius as ‘the free zone’, took off in 1971, with the number of industries rising from 9 in 1971 to 45 by 1974. The numbers employed in this sector also rose from 8 336 in 1970 to 20 673 in 1974 (Teelock, 2001: 403). In the 1970s, the Mauritius garment industry began to grow as a result of the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA), which began to restrict the industry in other garment exporting countries mainly in Asia. In 1975, the Lome Convention was signed, giving the price of Mauritian sugar a guaranteed price and Mauritius a quota of 500 000 tons of sugar, which was about 70% of the total sugar produced in Mauritius. From 1979, the government, in agreement with the IMF, introduced a number of “stabilization programmes”, including measures such as the devaluation of the rupee by 30%, stricter control over wages, increases in the prices of foodstuffs and strict monetary and fiscal policies. It was the crisis experienced by the Mauritian economy and people as a result of these policies that led to the riots and strikes of 1968 and the 1970s, and which finally resulted in a new party, the MMM being elected into office in 1982. According to activists and theoreticians, it was the strength of the Mauritian people voiced through the electoral system that began and continued to prevent the further introduction of neoliberal policies in Mauritius.

Despite the MMM’s radical posturing during the 1960s, by 1981 it had adopted a policy of building the “New Social Consensus”, aimed at fostering a partnership between all players (business, labour and capital) in Mauritian society. While it saw the MMM undergo serious political battles resulting in the split over the possible longterm effects of this policy change, it also saw the establishment of a fairly secure welfare state under which stable employment and

7 basic social services were enjoyed by the majority of Mauritians. “In Mauritius, as in other countries, there has been a constant historical struggle against the private sector’s hold on the economy and politics; for greater economic and social rights for working people, for democracy in all spheres of life, including the economy. The movement for independence and universal suffrage was an expression of this struggle. The major aspiration was for a Parliament accountable to working people, that represented public interest and that had muscle to intervene in the economy to secure it. The state that emerged from the independence process had to intervene and exercise control over the economy to protect the sovereignty of the newly-established state…Through this struggle, there were many gains: public services within government departments were set up or extended: new ministries such as the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Communications, formed in 1959, to be ‘generally responsible for the government’s industrial and commercial interests’ (Meade Report, 1961); and there was a vast and varied panoply of institutions set up: the Central Electricity Board (CEB), taking over several private undertakings to provide cheap electricity, the Central Works Authority (CWA), the Central Housing Authority (CHA), the Transport Development Authority (TDA), Rose Belle Sugar Estate, the Agricultural Marketing Board (AMB).” (All Workers’ Conference, 21 November 1996: 5). The Meade Report also argued for a series of measures to discourage job contracting and casualisation, and made important recommendations to improve the living conditions of workers through family allowances, widows’ benefits, unemployment and health benefits. In this way, the existing welfare state provisions of basic pension and health care rights would be strengthened. This social security system would be funded through taxation, in particular through a tax on sugar production.

This, however, was to change. “As from the 70s, under the Ramgoolam (sr) government and with IMF-WB pressure, throughout the 80s and 90s, the beginnings of government economic orientation that would lead to privatisation had already been put into place: tightening up of public expenditure on the public sector, constant devaluation of the rupee making it more and more expensive for the public investment in modern infrastructure, more and more tax incentives for the private sector.” (All Workers’ Conference, 21 November 1996: 8). While the Mauritian government first presented these policy changes as conditions of loans received from the IMF and WB, they soon became ‘advice’ accepted from these institutions, and “as from 1982, governments did not even deem it necessary to even refer to ‘dictates’ of the IMF- WB: IMF-WB policy became government policy; IMF-WB policy is what consecutive governments believed should be done.” All Workers Conference, 21 November 1996: 9). The irony was that the MMM came to power as a result of the population’s dislike for the privatisation attempts of the previous government, and was to be the party to lead the implementation of further neoliberal policies in Mauritius.

The successful attempts at privatisation by the Mauritian government have thus far included the complete privatisation of Mauritian Telekom, the closure of the Central Housing Authority (CHA) and the Development Works Corporation (DWC), the privatisation of non-core services in the public sector, and the introduction of university fees and book fees at schools (Meeting

8 with Lindsey Collen). While the government has plans to privatise electricity and water, these have so far been resisted (see below). There are also plans to privatise Mauritius beaches and natural coastline, in the interests of enhancing Mauritius’s tourism industry. Perhaps the most far-reaching policy changes have been those affecting the nature of work and employment, with the increase in casual, flexible, contract and part-time work. In the words of a unionist on hunger strike interviewed, “It is life itself that is being casualised. We can’t plan for our children’s future. We can’t make any longterm plans. Life is now being controlled by market forces. Flexibility translates literally into asking workers to lead flexible lives. How can you go home and say ‘let’s be flexible. Today we’ll have 1 meal, tomorrow maybe 2 or none…” (Reeaz Chuttoo, White Sands, interview).

Changes in the global economy and the effects of the implementation of neoliberal reforms in Mauritius have had profound effects on the local economy. Once built and sustained on the strength of the sugar industry, the Mauritian economy now relies less on this sector and more on tourism, finance, and the textile industry (which is also now under threat). The Multi-Fibre Agreemnt (MFA) will be phased out at the end of 2004, thus negatively affecting the textile industry. In addition, the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), which was passed by the US Congress in 2000, has already had a profound effect on the state of the Mauritius economy and promises to see the geography of production in the Southern African region completely change as the USA is allowed to dictate which economies to ‘open up’ or ‘close’ to transnational capital on the whim of the US market and the global economy.

AGOA allows the USA to base these decisions on a set of conditionalities determined by the USA that African countries have to be compliant with in order to have US markets open to them. This means, that until September 2008, the US President is given the power to open US markets to African goods and services from 48 African states, based on certain “eligibility requirements”. These requirements include that countries must not “engage in activities that undermine US national security or foreign policy interests” (AGOA Act quoted in Lallah in Lalit, October 2002: 62); that countries must strongly encourage the development of free-market economies and the commodification of all forms of life through measures like privatisation, the removal of subsidies completely (including subsidies to ensure food security e.g. on basic foods and medicines, and agricultural subsidies for small-scale planters and farmers), the removal of price controls, and the introduction of measures to remove protections for local capital and treat foreign capital in the same manner as local capital. Until now, the US President has declared 36 African countries eligible, and used these requirements to close US markets to 9 countries, which include Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia, Togo and Zimbabwe6. Mauritian activists have campaigned strongly against AGOA, in particular around the war against Iraq, showing how the eligibility requirement of protecting US foreign policy has unfolded in Mauritius. “Already Mauritius is feeling the weight of this conditionality. Since the passing of AGOA, the Mauritius

6 Sudan, Somalia and the Comores have not sought acceptance from the USA through this Act yet.

9 government has unconditionally backed the US attack on Afghanistan, has blindly followed the US lead in voting through the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and is now shamelessly poised to support US warlords in aggressing the people of Iraq.” (ibid: 63).

In addition, AGOA imposes other conditions e.g. on imports. This is perhaps where Mauritius has felt the effects of AGOA most in terms of the economy so far. Under AGOA, the US will only open its markets to garments made from cotton or fabric produced and assembled in the US or an African country. “This concession was made by the US Congress to US capitalists in the textile sector that saw AGOA as being a threat to the American textile business.” (ibid: 71). However, African countries defined as “lesser-developed7” by AGOA, are exempt from this, which includes all sub-Saharan countries except Mauritius, the Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and South Africa. This exemption holds until 30 September 2004 and allows garments produced in these countries to be made from fabric and yarn that comes from anywhere. In Mauritius, which does not produce its own cotton, AGOA has resulted in textile factories closing and relocating to neighbouring countries, such as Madagascar, where they use fabric and yarn from the cheapest places, usually Asia, and then are able to export the garments usually duty-free to the US, where market access is guaranteed. This has had a devastating effect on the textile industry in Mauritius, which has been a large provider of jobs in the free zone, with these effects being felt by workers and the poor in Mauritius. As more and more factories delocalise to other cheaper destinations in the region, Mauritian workers argue that they will be forced into finding work in other countries soon and that this will bring them into competition with other workers in the region. In addition, such competition is leading to a general downsliding of wages and working conditions in the region. During an interview with Josique Court, a woman working in a factory in the free zone in 2001, she made the following point: “Mauritian workers will move to other countries if they have to for new opportunities. But they don’t realize that it will be worse in those other countries, where we are not citizens.” (Josique Court, interview, 27/03/2001).

Ironically then, AGOA, as a “concession” to resistance to its conditionalities, includes in its final version a condition for eligibility that requires African states to respect “human rights” and “labour rights”. Rajni Lallah argues, “The US is renowned for interpreting ‘human rights in its own narrow imperialist interests. In Mauritius itself, the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) makes the quasi- totality of workers’ strikes illegal. Yet the US does not treat this as an infringement of labour or human rights. Or not yet. If the Mauritian representative at the UN does not follow the US line, then perhaps they will suddenly see the IRA as an infringement of human rights.” (ibid: 73).

With AGOA also ensuring that US business interests are not threatened, through the US President being able to suspend duty free treatment for African countries who threaten the profit-making of US businesses, the African continent and the lives of its people become the playground and puppets of a single man working in the interests of transnational capital, concentrated in the

7 AGOA defines “lesser developed” as those countries with per capita gross national product of less than $1500 a year in 1998.

10 USA. AGOA has therefore become an important issue around which struggles have emerged in Mauritius. In January 2003, during the AGOA Business Forum in Mauritius, South African activists joined in the alternative People’s Forum and march against the AGOA (see below).

11

the trade union movement in mauritius: challenges of neoliberalism

Trade unionism began in Mauritius in the 1920s, but only gained official recognition much later. The first trade union was formed at a national level in 1921, but did not enjoy any formal rights. In 1936, the Industrial Ordinance Act was passed “which allowed some sort of trade unionism” (Teelock, 2001: 361), and after the 1943 strikes and riots, this Act was amended to allow all categories of workers to organise themselves in trade unions. An industrial tribunal was started and a campaign followed to allow national trade unions to be formed.

During this period, the Labour Party (LP) was influential in the formation of trade unions, and was closely aligned to the Mauritian Labour Congress (MLC). This very influential role of political parties in the trade union movement was to continue and continues today. In the words of Ram Seegobin, “The main impetus for development in the trade unions has come from the broader political movement – Labour and then the MMM – so there was always quite a strong trade union movement, but with limited democratic conditions e.g. with the development of the MLC federation alongside the LP, the MLC could only have democracy up to a certain point at which the LP policy took precedence.” (Ram Seegobin, interview). With the emergence of the MMM in the 70s, came the formation of the General Workers’ Federation (GWF). Some 13 trade unions were organised under this banner and Paul Berenger, leader and secretary-general of the MMM at the time, was also vice-president of the GWF. The GWF has since split with the formation of the Federation of Parastatal Bodies Union (FPBU), which has since become the Federation of Progressive Unions (FPU), (organising workers mainly in the private sector).

Today, there are approximately 335 trade unions, representing 111 231 workers (21.5% of the workforce) in Mauritius. There are 10 major trade union federations and many unions are small, with fewer than 1000 members. (US Dept of State, 2001: 8 – http://www.state.gov/g/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8393pf.htm, Ashok Seebron, interview). Trade unions are independent of government and have established ties to local political parties and address political issues.

In 1973, the Industrial Relations Act (IRA) was passed and is still today the governing regulatory framework for labour relations in the country. Ram Seegobin states, “It was just the law to smash up the trade union movement. Unions were deregistered and had to be re-registered. Some were just blocked from re-registering by the LP because the MMM had muscled in on LP unions. The IRA made all strike action illegal and the only way that trade unions could function was through the legal framework, through boards and commissions and so on. There is almost no possibility for industrial action outside this.” (Ram Seegobin, interview). All unionists and activists interviewed remarked that the IRA has severely limited the kinds of actions that workers and trade unions can take up to ensure redress, particularly in a context of changing conditions of work. In particular, interviewees commented on the extremely long and

12 complicated legal process that any dispute is subjected to before any redress can be expected. When a wage dispute is declared, for example, the IRA stipulates that the Minister of Labour has a 21-day “cooling-off period” during which to respond. In this period, workers are not allowed to demonstrate in any way. If this is not adhered to, a strike may be declared illegal. Mauritius has experienced many illegal strikes, during which employers have been known to sack all union leadership. In such cases, workers have no legal recourse. This was the case in 1979, when there were many solidarity strikes. In the case of such solidarity actions, employers can sack all union leaders in all sectors in which solidarity strikes occur. During the strike of 1979, almost 2000 workers were selectively sacked across the country (Ram Seegobin, interview). If on the 20th day of the “cooling-off period” no agreement has been reached between employer and employee/s, the Minister of Labour refers the dispute to a tribunal or an industrial relations committee. Once the matter has been referred, it is illegal to strike. A dispute can take up to 12 years to be resolved (see the case of the construction workers below). In many cases, the worksite shuts down during this time and the employer relocates to another country, as employers are able to easily declare insolvency, with no consequences in terms of responsibilities to workers. During our time in Mauritius, there were sackings of textile workers in 4 factories and drivers from a tour operating company named White Sands. Unionists and activists interviewed about these sackings and the different forms of resistance mounted in opposition to them felt that “workers were victims of the law” as the law clearly protects the interests of capital, allowing employers free reign under the guise of increasing productivity. Examples are explored below.

The trade union movement’s adherence to this legal framework has both restricted the kinds of gains it is able to fight for and win, and it has contributed to the changing organisational culture and form of trade unions in Mauritius. One of the union organisers on hunger strike (see below) during our visit to Mauritius stated, “The legislation allows an employer to do whatever he wants.” (White Sands hunger strikers, interview). Shanto Atma, another union organiser stated, “The law has many contradictions…on the one hand it is our legal right to organise, but on the other we are not allowed to strike. Organising is subjected to several procedures set by the IRA. For example, workers are free to organise, but they have to pass their employers for recognition.” (Shanto Atma, interview). Interviewees also spoke of the contribution of this regulatory framework to the bureaucratization of the trade union movement, referring specifically to the way in which negotiators become a separate ‘class’ from the rest of union members due to the benefits they enjoy and because the process of negotiations is so far removed from the worksite and where members generally are.

Labour relations in the EPZ are covered by the labour laws and by the Industrial Expansion Act of 1993. This Act stipulates regulations for EPZ workers and gives employers the right to demand 10 hours compulsory overtime work (in addition to the 45 hour normal working week). Overtime pay is specified for the time worked over 45 hours. Women are not eligible for maternity leave after the third child and can be asked to do night work. There are no provisions made for retirement benefits or compensation for disability and the like. In many factories in the EPZ,

13 workers are paid according to their levels of productivity (e.g. on a “piece rate” i.e. by the number of goods produced, or by productivity bonuses).

Unionists and activists argue that it has been this limiting regulatory framework that has constrained organised labour’s effective response to the implementation of neoliberalism. It has also made the trade union movement insignificant in taking up the needs of workers in the new forms of work introduced by neoliberalism, as the law pertains to fulltime employed workers organised in trade unions. With the changes in work towards more flexible, casual, contract, seasonal work, representing those workers who do not fall within this definition has become increasingly difficult for the traditional trade union movement. In particular, the large number of casual and contract workers in the EPZ, have proven the most difficult to organise.

In the last 20 years, trade unions in the traditionally large formal sectors of the Mauritian economy have faced challenges as more and more members have lost their jobs with changes in the economy. For example, 2 of the dominant sectors in the trade union movement, the port workers and sugar industry workers, have experienced serious membership losses as a result of largescale sackings in these industries. Because of changes in the process of packing of sugar onto ships for export from manual loading of bags to bulk loading, over 4000 workers in the port sector were given pensions and sacked during the early 1980s. (Ram Seegobin, interview). Similarly, mechanization and centralization in the sugar industry resulted in largescale sackings. This resulted in 2 of the largest and most strongly unionized sectors of the workforce losing the power they had traditionally held. In July 2001, government again announced the planned voluntary retirement of 9 200 sugar industry workers (US State Department, 2001: 9). Ram Seegobin argues that “there has not been a transmission of the vast experiences gained in these traditional sectors to the new sectors, such as the EPZ” (Ram Seegobin, interview). He argues that while there have been a number of strikes in the textile industry as well as the hotel industry, there has not been the experience to make these strikes work or to turn them into a political movement. In addition, while the textile and hotel industries are now the biggest sectors of the Mauritian economy, workers in these sectors are isolated from workers and trade unions in the traditionally big sectors. In a general meeting of the GWF on 27/02/2003, trade union representatives from the sugar industry complained of the increase in the number of factory closures and the introduction of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), whereby workers accept re-employment in another factory (where there is no guarantee that this factory also won’t close) or 2 months salary and a piece of land for every year worked. Union representatives argued that this forced many workers who have accepted the VRS to become seasonal workers in other sectors. It was also reported that a common front had been formed in the sugar industry amongst unions to fight for a 5 day 40 hour week in the sugar industry.

During our stay in Mauritius it seemed as if factory closures and sackings of workers were common occurrences, the newspapers carrying a story almost every second day. The absence of any regulations in the EPZ and the introduction of the AGOA have resulted in

14 factories and companies closing down without prior warning to workers and relocating to cheaper locations such as Madagascar without offering workers any notice of impending sackings or any compensation. The unionisation rate of workers in the EPZ is only between 9- 12% (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2002: 3 – http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/02-09- mauritius.htm). This is due to a number of factors. Union activists complain that gaining entry to worksites is difficult and that employers are extremely resistant to the formation of trade unions. In many cases, managers threaten to close down factories if workers begin to join unions. Some managers make workers sign promises not to join unions. Once a union does gain entry into a worksite, it is then difficult to get the employer to recognise the union. Even when the Industrial Relations Commission orders it, it can take up to 2 to 3 years and can incur huge costs for the union. “In the EPZ sector the big problem is that you can work for 30 years for a factory and be sacked with nothing. The problem with organising these workers is that you can never tell in advance when a factory is going to close and most workers are in very vulnerable individual situations – most are couples with both having to work to survive because of low wages and when there is no work there is nothing in the home; there is therefore a pressure to work and not to struggle. There is also no time for meetings and for organising because of weekend work and high overtime. The majority of workers in the EPZ are women as “this is the easiest sector in which to get work in and many young women are forced to leave school to assist families or husbands in poor economic situations. Also, there are no qualifications required in the EPZ. It is also the most exploitative sector of the economy.” (Shanto Atma, interview).

“Also, we as trade unionists, when the workers are organised but the trade union has no recognition, we have no right to be at the factory to organise. We don’t have the right. Definitely the employer will call the police if we go there. There are therefore many practical problems which make organising of these employees very difficult.” (Shanto Atma, interview). In addition, ‘good behaviour’ is a condition for re-employment on contract and often union membership is not looked on kindly when considering this (Narain Devianand, interview).

An additional feature of the EPZ is the high number of foreign workers employed. During the height of the textile industry’s boom, Mauritius experienced a shortage of labour. Companies began to ‘import’ workers from countries such as India, Sri Lanka, China, Bangladesh and Madagascar. Almost three quarters of these workers are women and almost half of the women workers have children and are married. Even though unemployment is increasing in Mauritius, employers continue to hire foreign workers as they tend to be “more docile” than the local workforce (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2002: 5 – http://www/cleanclothes.org/publications/02-09-mauritius.htm).

Most foreign workers are hired by labour contractors or brokers, who insist on high fees for their services. Many workers remain indebted to their labour brokers for many years. Many of them also come to Mauritius because of poor work conditions in their own countries, and are often supporting families back at home. In many cases, foreign workers just live to work to earn

15 money to send back home. In a lot of cases, earnings in the EPZ are insufficient and foreign workers tend to take on additional jobs in restaurants and as sex workers. Living conditions of foreign workers are also extremely poor – workers live mainly in dormitories with 4 or more in a room; several workers are subjected to curfews and are not allowed to leave the worksite after certain hours. Overall, salaries for foreign workers are lower than normal. There are no unions which exist amongst foreign workers. Josique Court, interviewed in 2001, told of how foreign workers are deliberately kept away from their Mauritian co-workers, in separate work areas and living quarters (sometimes the work area serves also as the living area), in an attempt by employers to prevent any opportunity for collective engagement and possible organising. Language and cultural barriers also present obstacles to workers coming together. While would have expected greater hostility from Mauritian workers to foreign workers, Josique told of how “sorry” Mauritian workers in her factory felt about the position of foreign workers. (Josique Court, interview).

Increasing casualisation and contract work has provided trade unions with a number of problems for organising. All interviewees complained of the effect that the increasing number of hours of work was having on organising as workers have less and less time for trade union activities or leisure activities. At a meeting of the GWF on 27/02/2003, one of the major points raised by all 11 unions present was the need to fight for a 35 hour working week and against all the threats to the internationally recognised 40 hour week. This has also had an effect on the level of organisation at local village level with participation in clubs and neighbourhood associations declining. Georges Legallant exclaimed at the fact that even cinemas are being converted into factories, showing just how stark the attack on people’s time has been under neoliberalism (Georges Legallant, interview). In addition, contract work has meant that the majority of the workforce is no longer permanent, fulltime, or organised in a single worksite, making union meetings, the collection of union dues and the general running of trade unions difficult. “Trade unions are suffering because to join a trade union, you need to be employed. To have your contract renewed after 11 months, you need to behave. In between jobs you are not employed. This is a problem for organising in the sector. Often, workers only join a union after they are sacked. They also expect the union to do everything for them.” (Narain Devianand, interview).

In Ram Seegobin’s words, “In the 1970s, although the situation was very different, there was mass mobilisation in spite of the fact that there was mass unemployment. In these conditions workers would probably have been more reluctant to risk losing their jobs. But, I don’ think that kind of thing is spontaneously generated. Mass mobilisation in the 1970s of workers was a result of heightened political activism and alliances. Today, the trade union movement is organisationally and structurally unable to generate its own political force or power. There needs to be a conjunction of economic conditions and a political challenge to the system.” (Ram Seegobin, interview).

16 And, indeed political parties are taking on this challenge, playing a very active role in the struggles of workers in the new sectors of work. However, this takes place in various ways, with various degrees of gain for workers. This is explored in greater detail below.

17

new social movements – spectres of the old

In Mauritius, the failure of traditional trade union and civil society organisations to mount an adequate response through traditional forms of engagement against the introduction of neoliberal policies, saw the coming together of various formations of civil society, including trade unions and new social movements fighting the direct effects of these policies, in the All Workers’ Conference (AWC).

The AWC brought together all trade unions and trade union federations as well as a number of community associations in Mauritius, beginning in 1996. According to Ashok Seebron, convenor of the AWC, “The AWC was a product of the weakness of the trade union movement… And the main common enemy of neoliberalism is what allowed us to be allies.” (Ashok Seebron, interview). Activists involved in the formation of the AWC attribute a number of factors to its formation. Firstly, the leftist tendency, Lalit, had been expelled from all the major trade union federations, and the 2 leftist tendencies that had been within the MMM (Lalit and the Front Militan Progressive – FMP) had reached an agreement to build a common political platform against neoliberalism. Secondly, after 1994, some individual militants who had participated in the emerging anti-globalisation movement (in particular the ‘50 Years is Enough’ campaign against the WB and IMF) wanted to give local expression to this experience and organised several local discussions about neoliberalism; “this created the space for thinking about neoliberalism in Mauritius” (Ashok Seebron, interview).

More importantly, in July 1992, 800 construction workers were sacked for going on strike; they were contract workers who had been denied assistance by the traditional trade union movement and, after contacting Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT) and Lalit, formed their own union, the Construction and Allied Workers Union (CAWU), which has since fought a long court battle for compensation for these workers, ending only on 15 February 2003. During the early period of this fight, strike action by CAWU gained it much support and resulted in a nationwide strike involving all sectors in 1993. In addition, workers in the Central Housing Authority (CHA), were sacked in the same year as this entity was closed. With a growing problem of housing as a result of the closure of the CHA, a housing movement began to emerge under the leadership of squatters on government-owned land, assisted by LPT and Lalit. On 1 May 1993, a general meeting of all affected people was held. According to activists, this sowed the seed for the AWC.

The following year, government attempted to replace the IRA with worse legislation and, as Lalit had been campaigning against it for a long time, it was able to unite all trade unions and federations to reject the law. After the 1995 election, the Berenger/Ramgoolam government attempted to advance the WTO agenda – “Even union bureaucrats’ positions were threatened by this and it created anger amongst the union leadership” (Ashok Seebron, interview). It was in this context that LPT, which did all the printing for all the trade unions in

18 Mauritius and which was known to play a facilitating role amongst trade unions and workers at various levels, was called upon to organise the first national convergence of all trade unions and trade union federations as well as associations in Mauritius. In 1996, a 2-day conference of 1200 delegates from all trade unions and trade union federations as well as about 20 associations was held under the banner of the All Workers Conference. “The response from workers at the shopfloor level was tremendous…This was the first time in Mauritius that all workers from all levels of all trade unions and trade union federations were together in a meeting. This opened up new spaces which were less bureaucratic and outside of the trade union bureaucracies.” (Ashok Seebron, interview). “What it represented was a way for middle layer delegates to control, to some extent, their presidents of federations and so on.” (Rajni Lallah, interview). “The role of LPT in the AWC created the space for all social organisations and movements to be part of the organising committee and meeting itself.” (Ashok Seebron, interview).

After this first conference, a discussion ensued as to how to continue with this space. Within the organising committee of the AWC, activists report that there were always tensions between the union leadership and LPT and many attempts to exclude LPT from the AWC. The first attempt was dismissed, and the second resulted in a vote amongst the trade union federations in which 9/10 voted against removing LPT from the AWC. However, “this remained a permanent tension as it was new to have everyone on an equal footing.” (Ashok Seebron, interview). In terms of the organisational structure of the AWC, the organising committee and organisers only had the power to convene meetings, and there was only 1 office bearer (the convenor), who had the power to convene meetings and to propose an agenda for these meetings. Between the years 1996 and 2000, the AWC was able to successfully convene 17 congresses with between 400-1200 delegates in attendance and many demonstrations. It was also able to produce 3 white papers through consultative processes and papers on the various budgets. However, it was to falter when it came to the discussion around privatisation.

When the Mauritian government announced its plan of releasing a white paper on privatisation, the AWC also put in place a consultative process amongst its members towards the drafting of its own white paper. This included 1 day working sessions with unions in each of the sectors affected by privatisation. After a 6-8 month long process, a draft document was presented to a conference of the AWC on privatisation held on 21 November 1996. This document was adopted by the AWC as its white paper on privatisation and, ironically became the only white paper available for comment in Mauritius. The conference also called for plans to begin moving towards action against privatisation. Through the white paper process, the AWC had managed to educate and popularise the general population about the adverse effects of privatisation and the need for mobilisation against it. Particularly, the sectors directly affected by privatisation (telecommunications, water and electricity) were ready for strike action.

19 In 2000, these 3 sectors set up an Anti-Privatisation Front outside of the AWC, which announced a planned demonstration against privatisation for 22 July 2000. When a demonstration of the AWC was interdicted on 29 June 2000, it pledged its support for the planned actions of the Front. In the minutes of its organising committee’s meeting of 17 July 2000, the reasons for joining the actions of the Front are given as: “ 1. To acknowledge the positive initiative by unions of these sectors to express more firmly without any ambiguity their opposition against privatisation. 2. To add a national dimension to the demonstration given that this struggle cannot be restricted to a sectoral and corporatist struggle and given that privatisation affects ALL workers and ALL citizens of the republic. 3. To fully support workers in these sectors whose acquired rights are threatened by privatisation. 4. To strengthen the overall resistance against privatisation that was built by all organisations in the AWC since 1996, with the holding of national demos, the publication of a white paper and the holding of several conferences.” (Lalit News & Views, November 2000: 21)

The tensions between the AWC and the Front were to worsen, however, as a result of the work of a technical adviser to one of the union federations (The Federation of Progressive Trade Unions - FPU) of the Front, Jack Bizlall. On his advice, union leaders accepted trips to Morocco and France from Vivendi (the tnc bidding for Mauritius’s water parastatal) to “investigate models of privatisation”, and the FPU’s agreement with strike action became ‘strike action only if workers jobs are threatened’ rather than ‘strike action to stop the negotiations around privatisation by the state’. At the AWC conference on privatisation, Jack Bizlall threatened to walk out of the AWC if these differences were discussed. Although the AWC supported the anti-privatisation strike led by the Anti-Privatisation Front, which was an enormous success, the AWC was already split. In the words of its convenor, “Although these 3 sectors organised the biggest anti-privatisation strike in Mauritius, it was also the day that the anti-privatisation struggle was defeated.” (Ashok Seebron, interview). The result, nevertheless, was that “government could not push its privatisation agenda. They just couldn’t. And, because there were over 3000 demonstrators against privatisation, the first statement of the new Prime Minister when he was elected was ‘We are not going ahead with the privatisation of water. We won’t sell our water supply to foreigners.’” (Ashok Seebron, interview).

For Ashok Seebron, the start of this disunity in the AWC came when trade unions began to see their role as being defined by the maxim “defend the interests of your constituency”. “In the AWC it was easier to have unity about economic policy – IMF, WB, globalisation, neoliberalism – than it was to get unity around classical union issues.” The AWC therefore offered a space outside of the constraints placed on organising by the trade union form under neoliberalism for workers and others affected by neoliberalism to come together. And, “there has been a difficulty in the trade union movement since the ceasing of the AWC.” (Ashok Seebron,

20 interview). This is evident in the large number of workers who are sacked almost daily in the free zone and the large number of workers who are not unionized in Mauritius.

In the absence of the AWC and any clear strategies from trade unions for organising workers under these new conditions, the majority of workers, organised and unorganised, are likely to find themselves in the same vulnerable positions as those in the 2 stories related at the beginning of this paper. In the case of Stylish Knits, a lot depended on the intervention of Georges and Dani. According to Georges, had they not been there, the workers would have laid their complaints at the Labour Office and gone home. And, it was not an easy decision for them to make to stay overnight in the factory, with their family and community responsibilities weighing heavily on the mainly women workers involved. They were able to trust Georges because he lived in their village and was known to them as a militant from LPT and Lalit, which were known to be involved in such struggles. Although Georges was disgusted, angry and wanting to fight at the time, he told us later that he, and other LPT and Lalit members, are very committed to ensuring that workers take up their own struggles and are not pushed into things they are not really committed to. While he tried his best to assist, his role was to show people possibilities and options and provide support. “The workers must stand on their own feet first. We can stand on the side. So, we just offer support, advice and assistance with making decisions. We won’t speak for them. They must speak for themselves.” (Georges Legallant, interview).

That night in the factory, although it was merely symbolic as the women knew they were not going to sustain an occupation, Georges told us of the important discussions that happened amongst the women, who occupied in shifts, and with people from the village who came to offer support and food. “People spoke politics again after a very long time.” (Georges Legallant, interview). Georges and Dani had alerted the media, which had covered the story quite fairly. Although it was hardly a scandal when such occurrences are common. They had also made contact with the workers in the other factories and workers would all converge the next morning to demonstrate. In addition, they had tried to get various trade unions to assist, but “this was difficult because people who had been working for 14 years hadn’t joined a union” (Georges Legallant). The next day massive demonstrations happened. The only trade union to send a representative to meet with workers was the FPU, who said that the union would intervene and approach the Ministry of Labour. Georges told us later that the Minister of Labour was reported in the press to have committed himself to finding all workers alternative jobs, which was not true. On 27 February 2003, 2 days after the factory closure, workers received letters addressed to each of them informing them that Stylish Knits is now “in the receivership” of a Ziyad Bundhun, who is “of the view” that “due to prevailing market conditions and in the absence of current orders…the operations of the company should not be restarted and this is in the best interest of the company and its creditors” (Letter from Stylish Knits Reciever & Manager, Ziyad Bundhun, 27 February 2003). He further notifies workers that their employment has been terminated with effect from 28 February 2003 and informs them that they will receive their wages and salaries for the month of February. It ends with “I would

21 request you lodge your proof of claim with me. Upon realization of the assets of the company, your claims will be entertained as prescribed by law.”

While the case seems closed, Georges has hopes that he can encourage some of the workers in the village to see if they can come together to do some work collectively. But, this is not going to be easy as the pressures to find incomes are high, particularly as most households cannot survive on the wage of one partner anymore. Georges tells how many people have the idea that “women work just for small things”, but that the reality is that most families can only survive on 2 wages. He says that this plays itself out differently in different circumstances, but that because husbands and wives are having to find ways of ensuring the survival of their families, they are often supportive of each other. In the case of Stylish Knits, one woman had gone home only to be sent back to the factory to join the occupation by her husband. This was also Prishani’s experience with Josique Court, who was working in the free zone while her unemployed husband kept house and was “extremely supportive” of her in her many times of stress due to over-work and poor working conditions (Josique Court, interview, 2001). In other cases, increasing pressures on men and women to conform to old gender roles and stereotypes under conditions in which these roles can no longer apply (e.g. where a woman is forced into the role of breadwinner as she is more easily able to find work in the free zone than her husband who has been sacked) lead to increasing frustrations which manifest in various antagonistic relationships between men and women, sometimes violent. This is, however, an area for study on its own.

In the case of White Sands Tours, the intervention of the Minister of Labour and Jack Bizlall resulted in the employer agreeing to re-open negotiations, and by the time we had returned to the LPT offices after our interviews with the hunger strikers, the rally for the next day was called off.

While the AWC died, the AGOA business forum held in Mauritius in February 2003 provided an opportunity again, however, for the groups, unions and federations that made up the AWC to come together in protest of the AGOA and the war against Iraq. While the FPU initially refused to join the parallel People’s Forum, it eventually came round and participated in the march that was organised.

Another important component of the AWC was the housing movement (Muvman La Kaz – MLK). In the 1990s, with the closure of the Central Housing Authority (CHA), the problem of homelessness grew. From 1992-2000, with the assistance of Lalit and LPT, a housing movement grew, particularly amongst people who were squatting government-owned land. In 2001, Prishani was able to visit a settlement in Richelieu, in which the MLK was strong.

In 2001, squatters in Richelieu had just entered into negotiations with government after occupying houses that were being developed by government as ‘low cost housing’. This year, we returned to Richelieu to find the previous squatters in houses they now pay rentals for, and

22 were able to speak to one of the women Prishani had previously interviewed. Striking was the change in the atmosphere in the settlement. In 2001, although there were many problems facing the community, there was a sense of unity amongst people who were fighting the same struggle for decent housing. Today, little girls peer out from behind fences which separate neighbours, and the daily struggle for enough money to pay the rent, basic services and food has become an individual one. The woman interviewed was clear that there had been an improvement in the quality of her family’s life as a result of getting a house. She stated that this was something she and her husband would try very hard to keep. She said, “There’s something that we always say – even if we have to eat rice and water, if I can pay for the house at least.”

However, the problems which existed in the old settlement still persist – the majority of people are unemployed or contract workers with no steady form of income; domestic violence, alcoholism, drug abuse and other social problems still exist. In addition, bills for electricity and water are often unaffordable, and non-payment for electricity for a period of 4 months results in cut-offs. Failure to meet rental payments can result in eviction. In March 2003, there were 12 families in Richelieu facing the threat of eviction. However, there has been no coming together of the community or resurgence of the MLK to take up these struggles. “When we got houses everything started becoming individualized. Now things are done separately and people act as individuals.” The interviewee felt that, without the help or intervention of the MLK and Lalit, there would be no chance for collective resistance of evictions or cut-offs. (Richelieu, interview).

The political party, Lalit, and the labour service organisation, Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT), have played central roles in the emergence of the AWC and the MLK. Offering adult literacy for workers, publications in Creole, printing for trade unions and associations, and the space for the organisation of public discussions, forums, etc, LPT has provided and continues to provide invaluable support and resources for organisations in Mauritius. Without having any overt political affiliations, LPT has been able to bring people from many different backgrounds and experiences together at various points. Many LPT members and leaders are also members of Lalit. Lalit started out as the Lalit de Classe tendency within the MMM, which split from the MMM in the 1980s when the MMM shifted from its position of class struggle to one of building social consensus amongst classes in capitalist society.

Today, while Lalit exhibits features and characteristics of an old-style Trotskyist party, it also exhibits innovative features which have seen its organisational form adapt to changing conditions in the political, economic and social situation in Mauritius under neoliberalism. While Lalit exhibits features of a very centralized organisation, with a central committee and a tiered system of membership, there are also attempts at decentralizing this model. For example, membership on the central committee is by election but occupation of various portfolios rotates according to a list of members’ names arranged alphabetically. Full members of Lalit are expected to contribute a portion of their salaries to the organisation. Both Lalit and LPT are very careful about where and how they get money, and the HBF was the first official donor

23 organisation that LPT accepted funding from. This is based on a resistance to control from outside and an awareness of the roles that donors can play in determining the agendas of civil society organisations. LPT also generates income from the printing and publishing work that it does. Financial records and accounting are collectively managed by activists.

Lalit members are required to join and participate in trade unions and neighbourhood associations and clubs. Many of the leaders in the trade union movement, the MLK and the Muvman Liberasyon Fam (Women’s Movement – MLF) are also Lalit members. Most Lalit members are also members of LPT and this close relationship has allowed Lalit more space than it would usually have as a strictly political party.

After the closure of the AWC, the first national conference on globalisation to bring people from all sectors of life together in debate and discussion, was held by LPT in 2000. It was through this conference as well as a series of public lectures and workshops on globalisation (also organised by LPT) that a number of youth joined LPT and later Lalit. These youth have today formed the Lalit Zenn Grup (Lalit Youth Group), which is autonomous from Lalit, but has representatives on the Central Committee of Lalit. While most of the older members of LPT and Lalit have long histories in the independence and trade union movements, most of this group of youth are too young to have had any such relationships. Their entry into LPT and Lalit has also come as a result of their recognition of a failure of the old and a search for new forms of organising and struggling under neoliberalism. They too are involved in the discussion around a political programme and it will be interesting to see how the new and the old play out in terms of this discussion.

Lalit has employed various organising tactics and strategies in its programmes. These have included petitions to government and international institutions, marches, strikes, demonstrations, occupations, and participation in elections. Lalit members are quick to point out, however, that participation in elections is merely a tactic aimed at broadening public awareness around specific issues as well as the electoral process itself. “We participate in elections in a way that gives another kind of message. What we’re saying is that we’re not out there to get government or to get control. We’re using elections as a form of political expression of something else, the values of equality, freedom, ecology, feminism and humanism. We use elections to talk about these things. It’s very important as you get to be on national television to describe your programme. Therefore many things can be thrust onto the agenda e.g. privatisation.” (Rajni Lallah, interview).

In a population in which elections still play an important role in the way people view their ability to effect change, Lalit sees it important to contest this political space. “The right to vote is fairly recent and people still see it as an important event.” (Rajni Lallah, interview). It has thus used elections in the past to draw attention to the contradictions inherent in the system of proportional representation based on communalist classifications, and has successfully drawn young people to it in the last election through its disavowal of the power of delegated

24 leadership through elections. Rajni Lallah said, “In terms of overall political philosophy, there’s a whole new generation of people coming from the mass riots who were looking for another form of political expression and I think, especially among young people, they get interested in politics through the elections, in what they heard around the elections. So, they were glad to hear a party saying ‘we are not interested in government’.” (Rajni Lallah, interview).

Members of the newly formed Lalit Youth Group are quick to respond when asked about elections that elections can never be the way to real change, arguing instead for self-activity and self-organisation of people in groups and communities at the local levels of the village and the worksite. They also describe Lalit as being the only different space offering a real alternative for youth, who have been disillusioned by politics in general. Most of them joined Lalit only after participating in LPT’s seminars and courses on globalisation. For them, LPT and Lalit provided them with the only reasonable alternative explanations for the changes that they were witnessing around them. For them, organising is particularly difficult in an environment in which young people are lured by the culture of consumerism as set by the north and the west. The campaign that launched the Lalit Zen Grupp involved a campout on a beach in Tamarins on the south-west coast of Mauritius, targeted for privatisation and the creation of an artificial reef in the interests of tourism. Speaking to local people, they organised a petition, which was later submitted to the government.

While Lalit and the social movements more broadly have directed certain campaigns at international institutions, the majority of its campaigns have attacked the nation-state. Rajni Lallah comments, “Even in the 1970s, when the first gestures to the IMF and WB were made within the parameters of the free zone, even though people were angry with government for adopting their policies, they directed their anger at the state. After 1982, people realized that even if the WB and IMF didn’t exist, that’s what government would be doing anyway. The IMF, WB and WTO are also very far. They don’t have any offices here. What are we attacking then? Who are they, where are they exactly? So, I think people attack the state rather than the IMF, WB, WTO somewhere in Geneva as the government is adopting their agenda here.” (Rajni Lallah, interview).

Outside of these formal processes and developments, Mauritian society erupted in 1999 in 3 days of uncontrolled rioting after the death in police custody of the famous local musician, Kaya. While this arrest followed Kaya’s performance (during which he is alleged to have smoked marijuana) at a concert held by the Mouvement Republicain (MR) to call for the decriminalization of marijuana, the rioting that followed cannot be linked to any specific political force in Mauritius. Activists interviewed attribute the riots to a number of factors: police brutality had become common in Mauritius and Kaya’s death symbolised the worst effects of this brutality, particularly for young people who adored the singer; for a long time before the 1999 riots, villages would go on riot each time a person was killed on a main road by a passing car, and activists saw this as just 1 manifestation of the frustration and anger borne by people

25 living under deteriorating socio-economic circumstances; and the lack of political redress as the traditional avenues open to the public had increasingly grown to be perceived as futile.

In the riots of 1999, targets for attack were police stations and other official state buildings. Lalit stated, “People rose up against the state itself…the riots broke out against ‘law and order’, targeting the police remorselessly, while leaving the areas perfectly safe for everyone else. At the time, our members were present at almost all the hot-spots, trying to understand how the movement was developing, seeing how safe it was for passers-by, and analyzing the patterns that emerged. The massive rioting around the southern entrance to Port Louis, where things were the most hard. The shooting of two youths in Bambous after the funeral procession left Bambous, and the subsequent breaking up and burning down of the District Council, a symbol of state authority. The shooting by the police in Curepipe, and the subsequent rioting. The taking over of the streets in …. The dangerous turn of events in Quatre Bornes, where there were businesses run by the wives of Ministers of the Ramgoolam regime looted…Police stations were closed, and there was the opening up of the prison at Grand River North West, and the freeing of prisoners. Indeed an insurrectionary act…Then there was … the phase of pillaging. This happened once there were no police left. People turned in their thousands to pillage and looting. To aim at places of consumption, as we call them. People were against the state, rather than against just the regime.” (Lalit News & Views, May 1999: 8).

While there were attempts from certain quarters to turn the riots into communalist attacks on people, for activists interviewed, the rioting which occurred completely spontaneously and without any political coercion was a sign that people were ready for a new challenge to the status quo, and that this change would come not from the traditional political arenas, but from everywhere. “For me, the riots made me realize that all the things that I had been part of that I hadn’t thought were important, were actually important. Like, I’m a musician, and I didn’t realize that this was also a space of importance. Things had changed. This had become that and I hadn’t realized it was so important.” (Rajni Lallah, interview). The riots then both pointed to the potential, which lay in Mauritian society for struggle against oppression and exploitation, and to the need for imagining new ways of organising in order to allow this potential to be realised.

This potential also seems to lie in the close-knit structures which exist at local village level with a large number of neighbourhood associations, such as women’s, youth and social clubs remaining from the sugar industry culture of villages, where social gatherings played an important part in the everyday lives of people. In addition, the existence of a system of village elections in which over 130 villages participate, has resulted in a very localized system of networks and culture of participation in local governance amongst the Mauritian population. This potential has been noticed by government and left parties alike, who both attempt to influence the ways in which these associations function. The government attempts to gain control over them through state subsidies and through the local community centres, at which it offers small business development and managerial courses amongst others, most often

26 targeted at women. However, these associations, in particular the women’s associations often retain their original political function, which initially took the form of teaching women to read and write in order to be able to vote in the 1940s. Today, they often serve, instead, as spaces for political discussion amongst women. LPT and Lalit have therefore been able to broaden the discussion and debate around neoliberalism through participation of its members in these associations. The success and strength of the Muvman Liberasyon Fam (MLF) has largely been built through engagement and interaction with women’s associations at village level, which have grown to the number of about 400 (Rajni Lallah, interview).

Rajni Lallah, Lindsey Collen and Dani Sylvie-Marie speak with great excitement about their work with and in women’s associations, which have often resulted in successful campaigns led by the MLF. Ram Seegobin, in relating how lively and active some of these women’s associations can be if addressing a common problem, says that he could see the emergence of a struggle against employers in the free zone coming from one or a group of women’s associations as more and more women at village level, already partly organized in a communal manner, could come together around the common problem of poor working conditions and wages in the free zone, for example. He adds, “New doesn’t mean you have to invent something completely new and different. You have to build on what already exists. And local associations provide traditional spaces for new ways of organising.” (Ram Seegobin, interview).

However, even these localised networks and support systems are under threat today, both as a result of changes in the nature of work as well as political changes instituted by government. Under the dominance of the sugar industry, Mauritian workers were largely organised in large housing estates, which facilitated the development of close community networks, many of which remain today. However, with the sugar industry’s decline and the rise of more contract, casual and seasonal work as well as the rise of the informal economy, these networks have started to fragment as the drive for individual survival overtakes the collective organisation of the meeting of basic and other needs. In addition, government has announced plans to replace the system of village council elections with a new system based on fewer representatives for much bigger areas. Activists fear that this will completely remove any power to change things at a local level from people at that local level, and instead it will be a few, rich and influential leaders who determine the lives of the majority. This attack on local elections has been accompanied by the introduction of candidate fees for participation in elections, ruling out the possibility for participation by small parties like Lalit. Activists see this as a move by the state to silence any opposition to its policies and to maintain the impression that the Mauritian paradise is a reality. This is likely to force LPT and Lalit into a completely different style of politics and organising, and members of both organisations are aware of this challenge. Lalit has therefore begun a process of re-theorising its political programme currently at all levels of the organisation.

LPT and Lalit members have participated in various regional and international conferences, workshops, campaigns and so on. They have also invited and hosted several activists from

27 around the world to Mauritius to be part of their activities at various times. These have included Michel Chossudovsky, who spoke at the first AWC, Jose Bove, who spoke at one of the globalisation series seminars, and Trevor Ngwane, who spoke at the first conference on globalisation, amongst others. In South Africa, Lalit has had relations with various organisations and individuals over time, including the Workers Organisation for Socialist Action (WOSA), AIDC, the Socialist Party of Azania (SOPA), and the APF. LPT participates in the Jubilee South and Southern African People’s Solidarity Network (SAPSN), but has decided more recently “not to take these too seriously. In the last 2 years, we have been minimizing our participation in such things to a level that can be kept up with. It’s a waste of time to go to things we don’t understand. And a lot of it is very NGOish, which is useless. Sometimes the workshops are interesting in terms of knowing about things. But this is not always a priority.” (Rajni Lallah, interview). More recently, links with Khanya College have been cemented with Ram Seegobin participating in this year’s annual Khanya College Winter School in Johannesburg as well as the anti-war demonstrations while he was here.

Activists interviewed all celebrated the participation of a few South African activists from the APF and Khanya College joining the People’s Forum that was organized in opposition to the AGOA Business Forum in Mauritius in January 2003. While the youth were impressed by the toyi- toyii and singing, other interactions also seem to suggest the potential for building links between activists in the two countries in common struggles, outside of boardrooms and hotels.

beginnings

While neoliberalism might have led to the demise of the traditional trade union form in Mauritius, in the spaces left by the trade union movement’s failures in responding to neoliberalism’s various effects, new forms of organisations or new social movements have arisen that speak a new discourse that seeks to create a world and relations outside of the frameworks of neoliberalism and capitalism. While this new discourse might be built on remnants of older movements and traditions, it is one that does not seek closure or complete definition. Instead, it sets in motion a process of democratic and collective dialogue and action amongst communities of individuals and groups that is always productive, even of its own definition and representation. With this understanding, this paper is then but a contribution to the re-membering of movements in Mauritius, a process that has begun with the advent of neoliberalism and that will continue as people rise up against its devastating effects on life and labour.

28

annex 1: re-memory – towards a methodology

In the novel, Beloved, Toni Morrison’s characters use the terms ‘re-memory’ and ‘disremembering’ in a manner that highlights the ways in which narrative or writing or history (in this case of slavery) is always a process of enacting or constituting realities or truths. In this process, power is exercised at various levels, e.g. in the choice of focuses, priorities, omissions, style and so on. Significantly, how narrative is received and responded to, is also dependent on where and how power is exercised in society. Beloved then becomes Toni Morrison’s re- memory of slavery, in which those experiences, which are silenced in (and through) the dominant discourses around slavery (e.g. the experience of Black women), gain voice. Through the device of ‘re-memory’, which is completely naturalised in the language of the characters in the book, Morrison provides a compelling story of the ways in which knowledges are subjugated8 and reassert themselves. In her use of the device, Morrison also makes a case for the possibility of an eternal reconstitution of truths, realities and herstories through narrative. In this way the traditional space of ‘the novel’ is re-appropriated by Morrison and played with to the ends of subverting the rules of science, rationality, reason, logic, history, truth… and reinscribing affect, emotion and subjectivity as central to the ways in which meaning is constituted in the world.

Gustavo Esteva argues for a process of “re-membering” amongst people in communities as a way of undoing the process of “dis-membering”. He argues that the capitalist system dis- members communities and collectivities and works on the individual self in such a way as to lock us into individual ways of coping with living under capitalism. He proposes a process of re- membering that celebrates local knowledges, values and ways of relating to life that is oppositional to the dis-membering tendency of capitalism. In this way, the concept of “re- membering” also speaks to a fundamental shift in the ways that we approach change under capitalism, playing closer attention to the social relations that are able to be constituted outside of capitalist forces and drives.

This paper is our contribution to the process of re-membering the emergence of new social movements in Mauritius, as activists within movements in South Africa that are in touch with such movements in Mauritius and as researchers with access to academia, with a certain limited amount of narrative power in both spheres. Recognising this, we have made certain choices in the way we have approached the research and in the way we have written it up.

Our interest in this particular area of study and the reason for this research study came from our own lived experiences of changes that have happened in organisations of the traditional liberation movement in South Africa9, and our interaction with theories and struggles against

8 Foucault, 1980: 82. 9 Prishani was an active member of the ANC and ANCYL until 1995, the South African National Students’ Congress (SANSCO) and then the South African Students’ Congress (SASCO) from 1991 to

29 ‘globalisation’ that we were discovering through our academic work and engagement with activists in the emerging global movement for social justice broadly (both in the NGO sector and new social movements)10, the latter facilitated largely by the many activist networks emerging over the internet and the entry of South African civil society, in its broadest terms, to the international arena. For us then, we are as much subjects of the research process as investigators.

For these reasons, our approach to the research process has prioritised participant observation as its main means of sourcing information and analysis. However, the ‘distance’ that is usually present between the traditional participant observer, who is usually an ‘outsider’ to the material or context being researched, has not been possible with us being the participants. In this sense, we have not just been ‘observers’. This has also affected the ways in which the other parts of the research process (interviews, focus group discussions, the literature review and the writing up of the final report) have unfolded.

Our entry into Mauritius came in 2000, when Prishani visited the country as part of her work responsibilities at the Heinrich Boell Foundation, a German political foundation with programmes in Southern Africa, that was funding and working with NGOs in Mauritius. During

2000, and she was Vice-President of the SRC at Wits University in 1995/96 and President of the South African University Students’ Representative Council (SAU-SRC) from 1995/96 to 1997/8. Through her work at Khanya College, she has also worked with trade unions, in particular in the area of trade union education. Ahmed was an active member of the Azanian Student Movement (AZASM) in his youth, playing an important role in the school boycotts of the ‘80s in Lenasia. He was a member of SASCO from 1996-2000. Both of us were involved in the formation of the Wits Crisis Committee and the APF in 2000. We continue to be members of the APF and have also been involved in the formation and activities of the SMI. We have both also been involved in the formation of Indymedia-SA and continue to work in this space. We have also worked in the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) as board members between 2001 and 2003. Ahmed has worked for the Institute for the Advancement of Journalism (IAJ), the Centre for Health Policy (CHP) and Interfund. Prishani has worked for the Heinrich Boell Foundation and Khanya College. We have both done contract work for various NGOs at various times, including SANGOCO. 10 We have both studied at Wits University, Ahmed for an honours in Politics and English, and Prishani for an honours in Comparative Literature (after first trying her hand at medicine). While both of us are currently registered for masters degrees, we have not really found the time to focus on these. Academia (at Wits, in particular for us) has also become such a closed and alienating space, particularly because the Comparative Literature Department no longer exists (due to ‘restructuring’) and although we’ve both had great ‘supervisors’, the absence of a community of intellectuals at the University with whom to engage critically (both in the form of academics and students) doesn’t exist outside of the frameworks that neoliberalism has stipulated for the university as business and academics as producers of the cultural capital necessary to sustain it. Every visit to the University is an emotional challenge as we re-member past fights, relationships, discussions…the only conversations we can really engage in are with the few people we do still know, who are the remaining cleaners, security guards and gardeners whose pathetic stories of loss, betrayal and despair cut starkly into the veneer of ‘scholarship’ that we are still able to be a part of. We have learnt from these stories, however, that other ways of ‘theorising’ are possible and that some of the best ‘lessons’ are learnt in the struggles of ‘ordinary’ people and in the words and insights of ‘the ordinary’. While we have had the experience of traditional academic training and resisted it through it, we have learnt the most from the stories told, the struggles fought, and the lives lived outside of the disciplining schemes of capitalism and its institutions. Having said this, we are also currently working as researchers in a collective/consultancy called Research and Education in Development (Red), which we have set up in an attempt to sustain ourselves in a manner that allows us to produce critical research of our choosing and to interact with other activist/researchers internationally.

30 this trip, she met Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT) and Lalit, which were engaging in similar struggles to the Anti-Privatisation Forum (APF) in Johannesburg, as well as officials and members of the more bureaucratised, traditional trade unions. This was the start of an interest in comparing conditions under neoliberalism in the two countries, as the glaring differences between the traditional and the ‘newish’ seemed so similar to the phase we had moved into in South Africa. As a member of the APF, Prishani established links with activists in LPT and Lalit and maintained contact with them, not only through HBF, but also through meeting activists when they came to South Africa and linking activists in the APF and Khanya College with them through informal discussion sessions and forums. In 2001, when Prishani returned on HBF work to Mauritius, she was able to include in her work, interviews and meetings with workers and community activists from the different emerging movements and participated (as an observer) in a series of workshops run by LPT on globalisation as well as the first conference on globalisation to be held in Mauritian civil society, organised by LPT (and funded by HBF). Trevor Ngwane had been invited as a speaker, and this seemed to be the beginning of a relationship between South Africa and Mauritius at the level of those fighting neoliberalism. After Prishani left HBF, both of us continued to meet with activists from Mauritius as they came to South Africa to participate in various conferences and workshops. Our choice of LPT as an organisation to assist us with our research was based on this history and knowledge of LPT as the one of the main organisations facilitating discussion on globalisation in Mauritian civil society, as well as the fact that we already knew of links between LPT activists and South African and Southern African movements and organisations.

When we embarked on the research in Mauritius then, we also entered as activists with certain existing relationships with activists in Mauritius. Participant observation in Mauritius has thus included participation in activities and informal discussions amongst LPT, Lalit and Lalit Zenn Grup activists, informal meetings with these activists, and observation of the interaction of these activists with others in communities and in struggles (in particular of workers). We were also extremely fortunate to be able to sit in and observe, for the most part, a full day workshop of the General Workers Federation (GWF) at which 11 trade unions were present and gave reports about the effects of economic restructuring on their unions and members, and engaged in discussion around ways of approaching these problems. At the end of the workshop, during which we sat and took copious notes next to a brilliant activist-interpreter, our ‘participant observer’ status came in for a challenge as the President of the Federation announced (without warning and in Creole; so we heard in translation this announcement!) that we would be giving an input to the workshop as activists from the APF in South Africa. A whole new set of relationships was built after both our inputs and the possibilities for greater articulation between ‘our’ struggles and ‘theirs’’ revealed themselves again. This opened up new spaces for the research process as activists who had not really known why we were there in the first place then felt able to approach us with their own stories, anecdotes or questions. The problem of language also presented limitations on participation as the majority of people in Mauritius speak Creole. However, LPT activists were excellent in ensuring that major discussions and debates were translated for us simultaneously. Translation is always, however,

31 limiting as it does not allow for the grasping of subtle ways of representing things and we are pretty sure that a lot of the texture and feel of discussions were lost, particularly as Creole is such an alive, dynamic and play-ful language. In an attempt to further narrow the distance created by our geographical distance as well language differences, a member of LPT, Dany Marie, worked with us fulltime for the duration of our research, assisting us with the setting up of interviews, taking us to meetings, translating, and allowing us to be involved in her activist work in LPT. Ashok Seebron, a key activist in the trade union movement in Mauritius, also assisted with the participation in the GWF meeting and provided the kind of translation full of history and anecdotes that allowed us to understand so easily the discussions and dynamics in the GWF in such a short space of time.

This report, then, has been written in a way that reflects this process of engagement as activists/researchers and acknowledges our own contribution to the process of narrativising new social movements in South Africa and Mauritius through this project.

In conducting and writing up this research, we have also chosen not to try to ‘fit’ emerging movements into any pre-determined frameworks, such as those presented by the traditional body of social movement theory and the new social movement theory schools. We believe that the old social movement theory school is not conducive to analysis of movements who reflect completely different understandings of their development and have emerged under a whole new set of conditions that challenge traditional organisational forms that might be more amenable to the old theoretical frameworks. While theories of new social movements that arose in the 1970s and 80s in Europe and the USA, do attempt to offer a theoretical framework for the analysis of the newer social movements that emerged during this time, such as the environmental, peace and women’s movements, we believe that they do a disservice to the diversity that exists amongst these movements by trying to bring them all, regardless of their differences, into one homogeneous body of theory. As such, not enough thought is given to the great differences that exist between the international NGO scene and community movements, for example. In addition, we do not believe that such theories developed in societies in which movements emerging to fight neoliberalism are responding to completely different manifestations of capitalism in the North and West, can be used as models for emerging movements in the South. We prefer to embark on this project in the tradition of those social movement theorists of Latin America, India and the South generally who prioritise the ‘local’ in the research process, referring not only to a geographical location, but to the lived, immediate and subjective experiences of people living with and struggling against the ‘global’ system in its ‘local’ manifestations, not only in economic terms but also in socio-cultural terms, resisting the violence of “totalitarian theories” too and making their own meanings in various ways. In doing this, we are conscious of the requirements and framing theoretical models that academia expects us to respect. We use this space of privilege and power, however, to allow a re-memory of new social movements that resists closure in terms of its imagining and to speak this new discourse of life that has emerged within new social movements. This is a discourse that won’t allow itself to be choked by the disciplines of academia or be defined by the

32 dictates of an academia bound in service to capital. While ‘new social movements’ seem to be the new fad amongst academics swayed by changing priorities of donors in the main ( who are also recognising that the spaces in which subversion needs to be contained are no longer in the traditional spaces), our discourse seeks to challenge the emerging academic discourse around ‘new social movements’ that look for generalisable trends (often already determined by the international debates) into which any new emergence may be fitted, without paying enough attention to the actual discussions and developments amongst people within the movements themselves and completely missing the challenge that new social movements make to the forms of representation that academic study involves.

33

annex 2: list of interviews, group discussions & meetings conducted & attended

In-depth Interviews 1. Shanto Atma, union organizer, Federation de Travyers Uni (FTU) – 3/3/2003 2. Narain Devianand, general-secretary, Construction & Allied Workers’ Union (CAWU), LPT member, Lalit member – 4/3/2003 3. Meryline Eswari, woman in housing settlement, Richelieu – 3/3/2003 4. Rajnee Lallah, member of Lalit, LPT and MLF – 26/2/2003 5. Georges Legallant, member of Lalit and LPT – 4/3/2003 6. Ashok Seebron, technical adviser to trade unions in particular the GWF, former convenor of AWC, member of Lalit and LPT – 27/2/2003 7. Ram Seegobin, member of Lalit and LPT, former MMM member and union organizer over many years – 28/2/2003 8. Dany Marie, member of LPT, Lalit and MLF – 4/3/2003 9. Josique Court, worker in a factory called Le Tremoliere in the free zone, interview, 27/03/2001 10. Meryline Eswari, woman in housing settlement, Richelieu, 22/03/2001.

Meetings 1. Lindsey Collen, member of Lalit, LPT and MLF, writer – 21/02/03 2. Stylish Knits workers – 21/02/03 3. White Sands hunger strikers – 26/02/03 4. General Workers Federation meeting (representatives of 11 unions) – 27/02/03

Focus Group Discussions Lalit Zenn Grup – 02/03/03 Participants: 1. L. Nickell 2. M. Chiffonne 3. A. Hosenbokus 4. C. Clelie 5. J. Sarah 6. I. Jacob 7. S. Azore 8. P. Ramsohok

34 annex 3: bibliography

written material

General (globalisation, neo-liberalism, labour)

• Adler Hellman, J, The Study of New Social Movements in Latin America and the Question of Autonomy, in The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy and Democracy, ed. Escobar ad Alvarez, Westview Press, USA & UK, 1992. • Allen, B, Stepping Beyond Lean to Agile: Work Reorganisation in the Auto Industry, 2000 – http://labournet.ca/lean.html. • Amin, S, Social Movements At the Periphery, in New Social Movements in the South: Empowering the People, ed. Ponna Wignaraja, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1993. • Barchiesi, F, Promises for Sale: Debunking the Developmentalist State Form, in Debate, Issue 1, 1996. • Bourdieu, P, The Essence of Neoliberalism, in Le Monde Diplomatique, December 1998. • Butler, Laclau & Zizek, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, Verso, London & New York, 2000. • Cardoso, R, Popular Movements in the Context of the Consolidation of Democracy in Brazil, in The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy and Democracy, ed. Escobar ad Alvarez, Westview Press, USA & UK, 1992. • Chomsky, N, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global Order, Seven Stories Press, London, New York and Toronto, 1999. • Chossudovsky, M, The Globalisation of Poverty, Third World Network, Malaysia, 1997. • Comacho, D, Latin America: A Society in Motion, in New Social Movements in the South: Empowering the People, ed. Ponna Wignaraja, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1993. • Escobar, A, Culture, Economics, and Politics in Latin American Social Movements Theory and Research, in The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy and Democracy, ed. Escobar ad Alvarez, Westview Press, USA & UK, 1992. • Esteva & Prakash, Grassroots Post-Modernism, Zed Books, London and New York, 1998. • Foucault, M, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings, Pantheon Books, New York, 1980. • George, S, The Global Citizens’ Movement, in New Agenda, Issue 5, Second Quarter, 2002. • Hardt, M, Affective Labour, paper presented at Rethinking Marxism conference, December 1996. • International Labour Office Committee on Employment and Social Policy, Employment and Social Policy in Respect of EPZs, Geneva, November 2002. • International Labor Organisation (ILO), Organised Labour in the 21st Century, on-line conference proceedings, 2003 – http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/project/network/labst.htm • Krasivyj, D (trans. Wright), For the Recomposition of Social Labour, in Riff Raff 2, March 1996 – http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html/kras.recomp.html • Lentin, A, Structure, Strategy, Sustainability: What Future for New Social Movement Theory?, in Sociological Research Online, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1999 – http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/4/3/lentin.html • Mamdani et al, Social Movements and Democracy in Africa, in New Social Movements in the South: Empowering the People, ed. Ponna Wignaraja, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1993. • Marcos, Subcommandante, Do Not Forget Ideas Are Also Weapons, in Le Monde Diplomatique, October 2000 – http://mondediplo.com/2000/10/13marcos • Marx, K, Grundrisse: Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy, Penguin Books, London, 1973. • Negri, A, Revolution Retrieved: Selected Writings on Marx, Keynes, Capitalist Crisis & New Social Subjects 1967-1983, Red Notes, London, 1988. • Negri, A (trans. Cleaver et al), Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse Autonomedia/Pluto Press, New York/London, 1991.

35 • Negri, A (trans. Hardt), The Savage Anomoly: The Power of Spinoza’s Metaphysics and Politics, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis & Oxford, 1991. • Negri, A, Value and Affect, paper presented at Rethinking Marxism conference, 1996. • Negri & Hardt, Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State Form, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis & Oxford, 1994. • Negri & Hardt, Empire, Harvard University Press, USA, 2000. • Panitch, L, Reflections On Strategy For Labour, 2001 – http://www.yorku.ca/socreg/panitch01.html • Pape, J, Globalisation and the International Response of Labour, presentation to the Cape Town IFWEA Conference, August 1999. • Rifkin, J, The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labour Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1996. • Shiva, V, Poverty & Globalisation, 2000 – http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/text5.stm • Waterman, P, The Agony of Union Internationalism, 2001 • Waterman, P, Emancipating Labor Internationalism (from the C20th working class, unions and socialism), 2001.

Mauritius

General History

• Addison & Hazareesingh, A New History of Mauritius, Editions de L’Ocean Indien, Mauritius, 1984. • Allen, R.B, Slaves, Freedmen, And Indentured Labourers in Colonial Mauritius, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 1999. • Carter, M, Lakshmi’s Legacy: The Testimonies of Indian Women in 19th Century Mauritius, editions de L’Ocean Indien, Mauritius, 1994. • Smith Simmons, A, Modern Mauritius: The Politics of Decolonisation, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1982. • Teelock, V, Bitter Sugar: Sugar and Slavery in 19th Century Mauritius, Mahatma Ghandi Institute, Mauritius, 1998. • Teelock, V, Mauritian History: From its Beginnings to Modern Times, Mahatma Gandhi Institute, Mauritius, 2001. • US Department of State, Mauritus Country Report on Human Rights Practices, 2001 – http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/af/8393pf.htm

Globalisation & Neoliberalism

• Collen, L, Human Nature, Ledikasyon Pu Travayer (LPT), Mauritius, 2000. • Collen, L, What Exactly is ‘Mauritius’?, in Diego Garcia in Times of Globalisation, ed. Lalit, LPT, Mauritius, 2002. • Collen & Seegobin, AGOA: The Sting, unpublished paper, November 2002. • Lallah, R, AGOA: An Instrument of the US Ruling Class in Diego Garcia in Times of Globalisation, ed. Lalit, LPT, Mauritius, 2002. • McFadden, P, Patriarchy: Political Power, Sexuality and Globalisation, LPT, Mauritius, 2001. • Muvman Liberasyon Fam (MLF), Who Owns What & Why? Women Pose the Question of Ownership & Control, MLF, Mauritius, 1999. • Naidoo, P, Opportunities for ‘Growth’? The Mauritian Experience of Globalisation, in Agenda No. 48, 2001. • Seegobin, R, US Hegemony & Unilateralism in Diego Garcia in Times of Globalisation, ed. Lalit, LPT, Mauritius, 2002. • Seegobin, R, Ruling Class Strategies in the Region & the Tasks of Social Movements, paper presented at Khanya College Winter School, Johannesburg, 2003.

36 Labour

• All Workers Conference (AWC), White paper on Privatisation, Mauritius, November 1996. • AWC, White Paper on Taxation, Mauritius, April 1997. • AWC, Discussion Paper on Pension Rights, Mauritius, December 1998. • African Business, Trade Unions Bite Back, June 2000 – http://www.africasia.com/africanbusiness/june00/biteback.htm • Construction & Allied Workers’ Union (CAWU), letter to the Prime Minister, 24 September 1999. • CAWU, letter to the Minister responsible for the Development Works Corporation (DWC), 28 November 2002. • Clean Clothes Campaign, Mauritius: No Paradise for Foreign Workers, 2002 – http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/02-09-mauritius.htm • Mauritius government, Report of the Select Committee on the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 21 July 1982. • Seegobin, R, Labour Laws: From Slavery to Globalisation, LPT, Mauritius, 2001.

New Social Movements

• Grup Zenn Lalit, Tamarin Bay Waves Give Birth to Grup Zenn Lalit (GZL), 2001 – http://www.lalitmauritius.com/Youthentrypage/aboutyouth.htm. • Lalit, Police vs Ram Seegobin & Rajni Lallah: The First Case Under the Public Gatherings Act, LPT, Mauritius, 1993. • Lalit’s Position & Proposals on Electoral Reform, and Proportional Representation, organizational discussion document, February 1999a. • Lalit, The Matadeen Report & Human Rights: The February 1999 Mass Riots, Lalit, Mauritius, 1999b. • Lalit, Riots Can Bring Progress for Working People, flyer, 1999c. • Lalit, Lalit News & Views: Special Labour Day Issue, Lalit, Mauritius, May 1999. • Lalit, Lalit News & Views: Lalit Kont Privatizasyon, Lalit, Mauritius, November 2000. • Lalit’s Views & Proposals on the Funding of Political Parties, organizational discussion document, January 2002. • Lalit, Lalit News & Views: Prevention of Terrorism Act, Lalit, Mauritius, April 2002. • Lalit, Totalitarian Threat Against Village Councils, statement, 19 August 2002. • Lalit, Any Child Is My Child, open letter, 20 December 2002. • Lalit, The Local Government Bill, explanatory memorandum, 28 April 2003. • Lalit, Berenger Budget for Businessmen, communiqué, June 2003. • Lalit, Agriculture, Agro-Industry & Electricity, communiqué of demands, June 2003. • Lalit Women’s Commission, Low Wages, Free Zone Sackings, Cane Field Unemployment, Small-Scale Entrepreneur Ideology, the Informal Sector & Housework, dicussion paper, June 2003. • Muvman Anti-Kominalis, Towards Rejection of Communal, Race and Religious Classification and Categorisation, discussion document, 1995. • Muvman Liberasyon Fam (MLF), The Women’s Liberation Movement in Mauritius, MLF, Mauritius, 1988. • People’s Forum, Declaration of People’s Organisations in Africa, January 2003. • Platform Against Bush Policies, International Press Release, 26 December 2002. • Western Hemisphere Conference, Letter from Mauritius Re: Africa Bill, 6 February 1999 – http://www.ainfos.ca/99/feb/ainfos00054.html

video documentaries

• Trade Unionism in Mauritius: A Chronicle of Class Struggle, Part 1 – Mauritius College of the Air, National Resource Centre

37

38