JM et les chefs coutumiers de la République démocratique du Congo

18 October 2007

Advisers who do not advise

By Deepa Bhookhun
l'express 18/10/2007

How does one become an adviser to the Prime minister? We asked one of them. "Help them win an election" was the humorous reply.

Dinesh Ramjutun, special adviser to the prime minister, speaks to his prime minister mainly through the press. If this sounds surprising – and it does to many people – it is because not much is known about the role of advisers. Overrated by many, advisers, it seems, do not have that much influence on those they are supposed to advise.

Alain Gordon Gentil, former adviser of Navin Ramgoolam, says: “The role of the adviser is grossly exaggerated. At the end of the day, an adviser can only give his opinion when such an opinion is requested. What the PM does with this opinion is his own business.” The adviser thus does not make the decision. He cannot and it’s not his prerogative.

Yet, despite this, myths don’t die that easily. The myth – a lie in many instances – is that policy decisions are heavily influenced by advisers, that speeches are practically written by them and, above all, that advisers exert an overwhelming influence on the minister or the prime minister as the case may be.

After the PM’s speech in Union Park, many blamed his advisers – 16 in total – for the content of his speech. When Ramgoolam figures prominently on MBCTV news, it is believed that such a decision comes from the head of government himself, on the advice of his advisers. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

The key is not the adviser but his relationship with the person he is supposed to be advising. Clearly prime ministers and ministers have to rely on competent people whom they trust. But, more often than not, those influential people advise in an unofficial capacity – and such counselling usually comes free of charge.


“There are figurative
special advisers and literal
special advisers. It all depends
on their relationship with their
Prime minister.”



Those officially known as “advisers” often do not advise because their advice is not sought. Dinesh Ramjuttun is one such adviser, even though his official title is “special adviser”. This is probably where his frustrations stem from. Confusing his role as adviser to the prime minister with the more executive roles he had in the past, Ramjuttun thinks he should have a say in matters of policy. In truth, the system doesn’t allow advisers to do anything more than advise as and when their advice is required.

Bettina Cadinouche, another so-called “senior” adviser to the PM does not advise - she acts as press attaché. Dan Callikhan, senior adviser and director of communications, is also meant to advise on the communication of government in general, which he does to a certain extent. He exerts his authority mainly at the Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) where it is said he overshadows its director general and its chairman. Prime minister Ramgoolam gave legitimacy to this role when he answered a parliamentary question on the issue a few months ago.

Christian Rivalland, a close friend of PM Ramgoolam, also officially a senior adviser, is luckier than most in the sense that his advice is said to be sought by the PM more regularly than most. The prime minister also has a security adviser whose advice is very rarely sought on security matters. Jyaneshwar Jhurry, former MP, is also an “adviser” but he has been hired to look after the PM’s constituency for him and his advice is probably taken on board.

There are figurative special advisers and there are literal special advisers. One such was Jean Mée Desveaux, adviser to Paul Bérenger from 2000 to 2005. Desveaux was thought to be an over-zealous and overbearing adviser who poked his nose in many places, sometimes even where it didn’t belong. This did not go down well but that didn’t change a thing.

The main criticism against Desveaux – and other such advisers who were legitimated by their prime ministers – was that they lack the legitimacy to order civil servants and ministers around. The argument against this criticism was that the adviser derived his legitimacy from the person who hired him – in this case – the prime minister, who himself derived his legitimacy from the people.

But Desveaux, like other influential advisers was powerful because his prime minister allowed him to be so. It is finally all up to the prime ministers. Sir Anerood Jugnauth was said to be the easiest PM to advise. “You made a request to his secretary and she would usually manage to fit you in within the next few hours. He only had a few minutes to listen to you. You walked in, said what you had to say and he either said yes or no”, recounts a former adviser to SAJ. The same person advised Paul Bérenger as PM. “I waited a whole year to get an appointment whereas others such as Desveaux would walk into his office at any time of day,” says the frustrated adviser.

Other advisers have the same problem with PM Ramgoolam. “I learn what he has been up to through the press and there is no way I can give any feedback because it seems it is not needed”, says one of them.

But resigning is not an option. “It wouldn’t make sense especially as most advisers are not hired to… advise!” agrees the anonymous adviser whose function it is not to advise.