Leadership with Cassam Uteem

Interview by Grégoire Roos

Published: 17 December 2021

In a wide-ranging, cross-generational interview Grégoire Roos and Cassam Uteem discuss the role and importance of values, courage and responsible leadership in politics, and the vital need to reduce social inequalities and promote cultural diversity to ensure sustainable peace in society.

Grégoire ROOS (GR): February next year will mark the twentieth anniversary of your stepping down as President of Mauritius after you refused to sign the so-called Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). Drafted in the aftermaths of 9/11, POTA gave advanced powers to police commissioners to held and question anyone suspected of terrorism or links with terrorist groups. The stance you took then was bold and demonstrated a depth of convictions and courage hardly seen amongst politicians and statespersons. Twenty years later, this kind of bill has proliferated throughout the world, and especially in Europe and the United States. Terrorism, in the meantime, has never been so threatening and tens of countries on all continents. Does this show you were right to stand up, not just from a moral point of view, but also from a political and practical perspective?

Cassam UTEEM (CU): My refusal to assent to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) voted by the National Assembly of Mauritius in February 2002 did not mean that I was condoning Terrorism. I emphatically made that clear when, following my refusal, I was left with the only option of stepping down as President of Mauritius. I have always unreservedly condemned acts of terrorism on whatever ground and wherever they are resorted to, before and after 9/11.

I took exception to the proposed legislation for two main reasons, the first one having to do with the undue haste with which the government was rushing it through the National Assembly, without carefully studying all its implications and without prior consultation with any of the stakeholders, giving the clear impression that we were acting under pressure from an external force and failing to act with celerity would permanently jeopardise our relations with an important commercial and economic partner, which I was to find out was exactly the case. I was not prepared to be party to an act that was being imposed on us by any ‘big brother’ and I considered it to be demeaning and undignified to my country and its citizens.

The second and more important reason has to do with the very nature of the Act, which I found to be complete anathema to our way of life, our democratic way of life. It contained several provisions that would take our country close to a police state with powers to enter and search private premises, without warrant duly issued, and powers of indiscriminate arrest on flimsy pretext or even absence of evidence, by police officers of relatively low ranks, let alone the Commissioner of Police. I felt that the criminal law in our Statute Books amply provided for all types of criminal offences and there was no need for such an exceptional legislation. Moreover, with the definition that was adopted of terrorism and terrorist organisation, the POTA was giving an unfettered right to foreign nations and organisations to decide on our behalf, who was a terrorist and what we, as an independent state, should consider as a terrorist organisation. This was totally unacceptable and, as I said at the time, in all conscience I couldn’t sign the POTA.

I also knew, as many of us did, that terrorism could not be fought by a piece of legislation. The shared responsibility to fight terrorism doesn’t start nor end with legislations like the POTA. The passing of a law that is the expression of a firm commitment to certain principles and actions is far from being enough to combat a scourge in a globalised world, where an event happening in one country in the northern hemisphere can have immediate repercussions in another one in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. Some of the States are more responsible than others for the eruption of terrorism, like a volcano with its lava burning everything in its path. Terrorism doesn’t occur spontaneously. It takes time to simmer and eventually erupts or explodes. Both the internal and the foreign policies of certain countries can and do give birth to terrorism and terrorist acts. When in any society democracy, inclusion and social justice are flouted, when discrimination, exclusion, injustice and poverty prevail with no hope for change in view, when double standard repeatedly adopted by the great powers in international affairs becomes blatant, when the international community sits as mere observers or impotent agents they provide fertile ground for terrorism: people are frustrated and becoming desperate, they are easily drawn or tempted to extremes and to violent extremism.

GR: The past two decades have also seen the gap between politics and citizens widen, and the level of distrust towards political institutions reach unprecedented peaks. Would you say that much of this citizen discontent and success of populist discourse across America, Europe and Asia could be explained by a lack of convictions and courage from those in government? Had there been more Cassam Uteem´s, resigning to protest against what they considered as going against their values, perhaps we would now see greater support from citizens for their government and higher trust in political institutions. Twenty years later, is it still not the greatest political lesson yet to be learnt by most our politicians and rulers?

CU: Lack of trust in politicians and in political institutions is perhaps the overriding factor that explains the deplorable relation that exists, the world over, between the citizens and politics. Political leaders are expected to respect the word given and the pledge taken in their bid to accede to power. However, once elected and their objective achieved, they tend to forget the promises made and often take decisions that run counter to those promises. Examples of democratically elected Heads of Government acting as autocrats are legion and allegations of corruption and nepotism against them are never groundless, especially in the so-called new democracies. When political leaders act the way they do and when fundamental political institutions become subservient to the powers that be, people lose trust in them and faith in politicians and rulers. Civil society has a crucial role to play, and if well organised and structured, can contribute to restore the trust in the institutions and in politics generally, by investing all possible effort in lobbying elected members of Parliament and through the organisation of mass rallies to mobilise public opinion with a view to making the institutions more resilient and the political leadership more accountable to the people. I personally think that resignation is the ultimate option for any public figure, when every other avenue has failed, and it is a forceful assertion that not everything is possible or permissible in politics. Principles and values are not commodities that can be traded off! Such an act can help bring back a certain measure of trust in politics and in politicians, I feel.

GR: After your resignation, I believe you left for Mecca. This actually reminds me of defeated outgoing French President Valéry Giscard d´Estaing, who, after losing to François Mitterrand in 1981 and failing at securing a second term in office, retired for a few days in Mount Athos, a monastic island in Northern Greece. I know this is both a highly and deeply intimate question… Would you say that power has a spiritual dimension? And how has faith helped you stay firm in the storms, also enabling you to keep a sound distance towards power to stay true to yourself and what you believed in?

CU: The Hajj or pilgrimage to Mecca is an annual event that takes place in a specific lunar month and requires advance preparation. The pilgrimage of a Head of State is very much like a State visit, protocol procedures have to be followed and the Saudi authorities advised on time. Special provision is made to host, accompany and assist VVIPs and their suite. The presidency had followed all procedures and as I was to be accompanied by my wife and a few members of my close family, our bookings, on a commercial flight, were made in good time. This lengthy introductory reply to your question is necessary to explain that there was no correlation whatsoever between my stepping down as President of the Republic and the pilgrimage to Mecca I was to undertake the day following my resignation.

My religious beliefs generally guide my personal life and do naturally, to a certain measure, influence my attitude and behaviour towards others and towards problems coming my way. But as a public figure, over the years, especially in my various capacities as parliamentarian, minister and President of the Republic, the respect of the State’s Constitution has prevailed, in all circumstances. I would never impose my religious views or my personal philosophy on any of my constituents. Mauritius, as you know, is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country and the state a secular one, that is equidistant from all religions, neither for nor against any. Actually Religion plays such an important role in my country that the State has found it expedient to provide, in the country’s budget, an annual subsidy to all the main religions followed in Mauritius. It is believed that virtues embedded within the various religious traditions, such as integrity, moral conduct, tolerance and responsibility encourage ethical behaviour and religion and spirituality therefore play a role in ethical decision-making as they promote such virtues.

I think if a political figure is imbued with religious beliefs and values, he tends to develop an acute awareness of his duties and responsibilities, show more compassion towards the poor and the downtrodden and strive far more than others to come up with measures to bring some comfort in their lives. One becomes more prone to social justice and in many cases, the realisation or fear of being held accountable for one’s deeds in some form or other, in the hereafter, would serve as a deterrent to the temptation of using one’s position for any form of undeserved personal advancement or benefit or to indulge in illicit dealings and criminal acts… at least in principle!

It is said and widely believed that those wielding power are often alone when taking crucial decisions. It’s true that there are certain situations when such decisions have to be taken alone and in the quietness of one’s office. These are always very delicate matters and sensitive issues involved that at times require unpopular measures. You have to muster all the resources within you and, as a believer, implore the Almighty to help and give you the necessary wisdom to take the right decision. When for a decision taken you are unduly and unjustly criticised, you often have to draw on your spiritual strength to face the music and ultimately win over those contradicting you.

GR: You are fluent in both French and English, the two de facto official languages of the Republic of Mauritius. You are also a strong supporter of Mauritian Creole and of its writers. To what extent has your multilingualism helped you better understand the complexity of the challenges you faced, both as President, as UN Special Envoy, Head of the United Nations Electoral Observation Mission in Burundi and Chairman of the Global Leadership Foundation? And would you say that linguistic diversity is a lever of peace and unity in a world threatened by a kind of cultural uniformisation fostered by globalisation?

Let me correct you: I am currently a Board member of GLF whose founder is FW de Klerk and its recently appointed chairperson Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.

To be able to speak and understand English, French and other languages, not necessarily being a polyglot, is a very great advantage in interpersonal relations. Language is a symbolic tool that we use to communicate our thoughts and unless we are fully conversant with a language we can miss certain subtleties that it often contains and in the process fails to capture the real message that is being conveyed. Besides, it is always easier to relate to persons who speak the same language. You can be in a one-on-one relationship without the cumbersome presence of an interpreter.

The fact of being tri-lingual made it much easier for me to relate with my interlocutors during international meetings or within international organisations, whether in the francophone, anglophone or créolophone worlds. The quasi monopoly of the English language in the international media and the internet is to the detriment of other languages and, as in so many cases, they tend to be relegated to an inferior status and may eventually suffer the same fate as those hundreds of languages that are no longer being spoken still less written.

Whether in Haiti, where on several missions, I had to interact with people who spoke only the Haitian creole, or in Burundi where the conversation would be solely in French, I found that it provided me with an edge over those who couldn’t understand the languages and in certain cases I would either monopolise the conversation or often find myself acting as interpreter, as well. Cultural -including linguistic- diversity is today a fact of life as globalisation gets entrenched and acquiring skills in several languages has become an absolute necessity to be able to operate effectively and efficiently. As countries like China and India come to occupy a greater space in world politics and commerce, Mandarin and Hindi will not only become commonly used languages in international fora, but more and more important in our dealings with those two most densely populated countries of the world. Mauritius, I am proud to say, has already taken the lead as both Mandarin and Chinese are now taught as examination subjects in primary schools.

GR: In a speech you gave in 2016 as President of ATD Fourth World before the Organisation international de La Francophonie to commemorate Father Joseph Wresinski´s historic Call to Action against extreme poverty at the Trocadero Human Rights Plaza in Paris (17th October 1987), you stated that “our cultural diversity, beliefs, and social differences are actually virtues if we can only succeed in recognizing the inalienable dignity of each person.” Judging by the new recrudescence of extreme poverty in so-called industrialised countries, would you say that the rise of individualism, by trampling the dignity of the human person, is threatening these virtues you are referring to?

CU: The rise of individualism and materialism across the world is indeed one of the main reasons for the increase in the number of people living in poverty. It makes one insensible to the fundamental rights of others and influences the social policies of governments. The model of development favouring individual success, encouraging cut-throat competition, creating societies where only the fittest survive is responsible for the increase in the number of people living in poverty including in those so-called developed countries. The fight against poverty is the responsibility of the State and it should be brought home that unless we create an inclusive society based on the respect of human rights, on equal rights and equal opportunities, we shall not be able to eliminate extreme poverty in the world. The voice of the poor must be heard, their effort and sacrifice in the face of the vagaries of life appreciated and their views sought in our effort to fight this scourge. This is how we would restore the dignity of the human person and be able to eventually meet their felt needs.

GR: During your studies, you worked significantly with social workers (you hold degrees and certificates from both Mauritius and France in Social Work). How has this experience early in your life, that has surely taught you humility, helped you on your political journey and as a statesman? Did it facilitate identifying with human suffering and help you better understand the needs and aspirations of ordinary people? At a time when politicians are said to be cut off from the life of most of the population, would you say social work should be a mandatory stage in the training of anyone running for office?

CU: I grew up in a poverty-stricken suburb of the city of Port Louis and shared the life of the families who had to strive the whole day, toiling and sweating, to earn their living and provide for their children. I had the advantage of having a very caring mother and a father who put a high premium on education and drove his children to develop an interest, if not a liking, in acquiring knowledge that enabled them to study up to the secondary and some even to university level. I became, at a very early age, aware and conscious of the discrimination, humiliation, injustices towards those families and the unequal opportunities in our society which resulted in most of the children of my age dropping out of school without completing their primary schooling and without proper training, they had to be content with poorly remunerated menial jobs, joining and consolidating the infernal cycle of poverty in which their parents were entangled for generations.

Even before completing my secondary education, I had started doing community work and, as a youth leader, organised social, cultural and educational activities involving the youth of my area. I soon realised that fundamental changes were required in our society to integrate the young people, to provide them with the proper training as apprentices of trades and to combat the social problems, including child delinquency, anti-social behaviour including drug addiction that prevailed in the pockets of poverty around cities and in coastal villages. I was to come to the conclusion, after working at the grass root for a couple of years as social and community worker, that only through politics could such changes be brought about. Hence, my decision to join politics and at a most interesting time, when our country was engaged in the final process of decolonisation. I became part of the pro-independence forces and thus contributed, in my own humble way, to liberate my country from the yoke of colonialism.

A politician has to stay close to his constituents and work to improve their conditions of living and to ensure that the fundamental human rights are respected. And, social work is certainly helpful and even necessary to understand human suffering and identify the real problems of the people so that adequate solutions might be devised and applied.

GR: Earlier this year, the United Nation International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas ruled that the United Kingdom (UK) had no sovereignty over the Chagos islands. This came after a ruling of the International Court of Justice in 2019 and a near-unanimous vote at the UN General Assembly. Last August, the UN Universal Postal Union went on to ban UK-issued stamps from being used on the Chagos archipelago. But the British government insisted it would not relinquish sovereignty over the islands and confirmed the renewal a lease agreement with the United States to use the largest of the Chagos islands as a military base until 2036. If international law has clearly enabled things to move in a positive direction, can it have the last word in situations where only strength seems to be the norm?

CU: As you have mentioned, Mauritius has won some important legal battles in its bid to recover its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Both the International Court of Justice in the Hague and the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation in New York have condemned the continued illegal occupation of part of the Mauritian territory by the United Kingdom (UK), its dismemberment before granting it independence, the illegal and I may add immoral expulsion of the whole Chagossian population, some families to the Seychelles and others and more numerous to Mauritius, the creation of a fake colony — the British Indian Ocean Territory. The UK has been given a reasonable delay to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius and return the Archipelago to its rightful owners, but unfortunately they have ignored the recommendation of the very Institutions they have contributed to create. By so doing, they have confirmed that for them Might is right! The champions of the rule of law which they claim to be have been unmasked: what applies to others doesn’t apply to them!

There are no legal battles left as Mauritius has won them all. Politics and diplomacy are now to take over. But we are in this matter dealing with two very important world powers, the UK and the United States of America (USA). Diego Garcia, which is the main island of the Chagos Archipelgo has been rented to the Americans and they have established thereon one of the most important military bases — some even say a nuclear base — outside the USA. The current government of Mauritius has given assurances that once the sovereignty issue is resolved they would be prepared to negotiate with the USA for a long-term lease of Diego Garcia and would not oppose the existence of a military base on our territory. I personally think the key to the issue lies with the American administration and the way forward would perforce have to include intense US Congress lobbying for the respect of our rightly claim of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and for the return of the Chagossian people to their native islands. It is probably a losing battle but it is one for justice and self-respect.

Grégoire Roos is a geopolitical analyst based in Germany. He previously worked for UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa, and served as France´s Youth Ambassador to UNESCO.