40 Years Constitutional Tightrope: Mauritius’ Elusive Quest for Electoral Justice

A broken electoral system remains uncorrected after forty years of political rhetoric, continuing to ignore minority votes, sideline women, and rely on an absurdly outdated 1972 census. While parties publicly agree on the need for change, a deep-seated fear of the unknown and partisan self-interest have led to decades of policy paralysis. The following analysis dissects why Mauritius remains trapped in a democratic time warp, chasing a “Holy Grail” of reform that never seems to materialise.

A Litany of Failures: The Unresolved Agenda

The Mauritian political landscape remains haunted by three persistent failures that have endured for decades.

Since the historic “60-0” sweep of 1982, there has been a cross-party consensus—in principle—to fix a system where a party can secure nearly 30% of the vote but zero parliamentary seats.

Yet, 43 years on, the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) model remains uncorrected despite a mountain of expert reports and commissions.

Furthermore, the “democratic deficit” facing women is stark. While making up 50.8% of the population, women hold only 18.2% of MP seats and a mere 8% of ministerial posts.

This continues despite the “Sachs recommendation” made 24 years ago, which offered a simple fix: fielding at least one woman in each of the 20 three-member constituencies.

Finally, the nation remains in a legal quagmire regarding the Best Loser System (BLS). For 35 years, the Supreme Court and Privy Council have warned against using the archaic 1972 census for seat allocation.

Despite a 2012 UN admonition giving the country 180 days to act, the 54-year-old demographic data is still in use today.

The Six-Million-Dollar Question: Why the Paralysis?

If every major party agrees on the need for fairness, gender equity, and updated statistics, why has nothing changed? While politicians often indulge in a partisan blame game, the reality is more complex. It is a cocktail of “performative politics,” vested interests, and a genuine fear of the unknown.

Mauritius is a plural society, and electoral rules are not “off the peg” solutions; they must be “made to measure.”

There is a palpable lack of expertise regarding the unintended consequences of shifting systems.

This uncertainty, coupled with strategic political maneuvering to maintain the status quo, has resulted in a total policy paralysis.

Narrowing the Scope: Avoiding the “Headless Chicken” Approach

For reform to succeed, the focus must remain on the three core issues addressed since 2001. Current efforts risk raising public expectations only to dash them by failing to provide clear “guidelines on the direction of travel.”

Unlike the Sachs Commission of 2001 or the 2018 government proposals—which maintained the 20 three-member constituencies as a bedrock—the current debate lacks guardrails.

Without a focused agenda, suggestions are flying in all directions, ranging from “seismic shifts” like full Proportional Representation (PR) to a complete redrawing of electoral boundaries.

The Government Gameplan: Evolution, Not Revolution

Despite the radical proposals being floated, the most likely outcome is an evolutionary step rather than a total rupture.

This would likely involve retaining the current constituency structure while superimposing a “dose of PR” to mitigate the disparity between votes and seats.

Notably, experts argue that we do not actually need sweeping electoral reform to achieve gender fairness; we simply need to implement the 24-year-old Sachs recommendation.

This view is informed by 25 years of research into plural societies—such as Fiji, South Africa, and Northern Ireland—where the balance of stability, fairness, and diversity is a delicate mathematical act.

A History of Suggestions: The “Ice Cream” of Reform

The quest for a “curated” system dates back to the 1950s, involving a long list of commissions: Trustram-Eve (1959), Banwell (1966), and Sachs (2001), to name a few.

The current consultation is expected to mirror the 2001 Sachs Commission, which saw 70 written submissions and dozens of meetings. Suggestions vary as widely as ice cream flavors:

• System scale: From keeping the current seats to increasing the house to 104 members.
• Voting rights: Including the diaspora and implementing term limits.
• The BLS: From total abolition to updating the 54-year-old census.

The Search for the Holy Grail

Changing an electoral system is a gargantuan task. The UK has grappled with its FPTP system for 125 years, while New Zealand took 75 years to achieve change.

In Mauritius, the challenge is amplified by our multi-ethnic and multi-faith fabric. Since 1959, we have cycled through “workarounds.”

One system was scrapped in 1967 due to risks of corruption; the current one is under fire for disproportionate outcomes and the mandatory declaration of a candidate’s community.

The “Holy Grail” of a perfectly fair system remains, for now, just out of reach.

Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater

While critics are vocal, the current First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system has been the bedrock of Mauritian success, transforming a “basket case” economy into an upper-middle-income nation.

The system—unique for its three-member constituencies and the Best Loser System (BLS)—excels in four key areas:

• Stability: It consistently produces clear majorities, essential for decisive governance.
• Diversity: By protecting minority representation through the BLS, the system has proven fairer to communities than to political parties.
• Accountability: It fosters a direct link between MPs and voters, even if it does occasionally encourage “pork barrel politics” where members secure local projects to win support.
• Harmony: The high threshold for victory discourages single-issue communal parties, preserving peace in a multi-religious society.

Crucially, FPTP is not to blame for the low number of women in Parliament; that failure lies solely with a lack of political will to field female candidates.

The Three-Pronged Challenge

To reform the system without breaking it, three interlinked questions must be answered:

• A. The Gender Deficit: This is the easiest fix and requires no constitutional overhaul—simply a commitment to the 2002 Sachs recommendation. Currently, women make up 50.8% of the population but hold only 18.5% of MP seats and 8% of Cabinet posts. The goal should be full parity by 2030, aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goal 5.5.
• B. The Proportionality Dose: Injecting Proportional Representation (PR) to help unsuccessful parties is mathematically complex. There is a dangerous trade-off: the more “fair” the system becomes to small parties, the less stable the government becomes. The risk is a mixed system collapsing into a “full PR” mode that could paralyse the state.
• C. The “Elephant in the Room”: The Best Loser System is at a breaking point. We cannot continue using the 1972 census; to do so violates human rights. However, if the BLS is scrapped or subsumed into PR, a credible alternative must be found to ensure “fair and adequate representation” for all socio-demographic groups as promised in Clause 5(1) of the Constitution.

The Hidden Risks of Reform

Electoral rules are never neutral; they dictate the “political colour” of the government and can even turn a tiny party into a “kingmaker.” Several pitfalls lie ahead:

• Partisan Self-Interest: Parties often suggest changes simply to boost their own fortunes or hinder opponents, as seen in the UK, Canada, and France.
• The “Knowledge Gap”: Many advocates do not grasp the complex mathematics involved. For instance, Clause 5 of the First Schedule already functions as a form of ethnic proportional representation.
• The Mexican Lesson: Partisan meddling can lead to chaos. In Mexico, five different systems were used in five elections between 1985 and 1997. Mauritius must avoid such “tribal politics.”
• Unintended Consequences: Proposals like returning to single-member constituencies (as seen between 1959-1967) could inadvertently fuel corruption or ruin the demographic balance of Parliament.
• The Rodrigues Warning: In Rodrigues, the PR seats actually reversed the outcome of the main FPTP election—a result most want to avoid on the mainland.

No Magic Wand

In a plural society, there is no “perfect” electoral system, only one that is “less imperfect” than the rest. A prudent approach must balance the flaws of the current system against the inherent risks of the new. Any reform must be “back-tested” and “future-proofed” to ensure it doesn’t create a cure worse than the disease. Mauritius is not looking for a total disruption, but a curated balance that maintains stability while inching toward greater fairness.

Source: l’Express