Political correctness dictates that some subjects are best left unmentioned. In Mauritius, the subsidization of religious bodies is one such taboo. The mere mention of this sensitive issue is enough to give most politicians a cold sweat. Not Cehl Meeah and Eric Guimbeau though. In Parliament last Tuesday, they enquired as to whether the moment had not come to review the mechanism used to allocate funds to religious bodies or even to scrap this “long tradition of helping” these organizations altogether.

Whatever their intentions, the subject broached by these MPs throws up a host of interesting questions. According to the acting Prime minister, Rashid Beebeejaun, funds are allocated on a per capita basis. This is calculated using figures contained in the 1972 population census, which have been “corrected by the Central Statistics Office” (CSO).

When quizzed on how exactly the CSO goes about “correcting” the data, Rashid Beebeejaun merely affirmed that the procedure is “reliable”. In other words, he’d like us to take his word for it. He also explained religious bodies are “requested” to spend 80% of their subsidies to “meet the salaries of priests”.

Yet the stakes are perhaps a little high to accept these assertions at face value. According to the National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) 2007 report, religious bodies receive Rs69 million annually.

Another category, religious bodies and charitable institutions, get an additional Rs8.4 million.

To put these figures into context, it’s perhaps worth mentioning that vulnerable groups and senior citizens receive a mere Rs16 million per annum.

Given that the welfare state costs us Rs20 billion annually, it can be argued that Rs69 million is a small price to pay to keep everyone happy.

Reality however is rarely that simple. The NHRC’s report warns that “economic difficulties threaten the maintenance of the welfare state”. This is made all the more worrying by the fact that, as the NHRC justly notes, the rights to education, health, housing, work and social security are not actually enshrined in the Constitution.

This means that the State can discontinue funding for these sectors if it so chooses. Although such an eventuality seems highly unlikely, the issue of the continued financial viability of the welfare state is a crucial one in a worsening economic climate. What will happen the day the State is no longer able to afford its customary largesse? Will government have the courage to cut funding to religious bodies rather than, say, to the poor and the disabled?

In its report, the NHRC pointed out that “the State grants subsidies to religious institutions though Mauritius is a secular state.” It also added that “a debate has been initiated as to whether such subsidies should be discontinued. They should not be withdrawn until and unless all parties have been consulted.”

What, if anything, has become of this debate?

Must we accept the financing of religious bodies as a given? What about a system of performance based budgeting? Or even a Trust Fund for Vulnerable Religious Groups to ensure that only the neediest organizations receive funds?