Electoral Reform: Holy Grail or Poisoned Chalice?

Editorial

As the sun sets on Friday, January 30, 2026, a significant chapter in Mauritian political history quietly draws to a close. Today marks the final deadline for citizens, civil society organisations, and the diaspora to submit proposals on electoral reform to the Prime Minister’s Office. For the Alliance du Changement government, this is more than a formal deadline. It is the moment when it begins to grasp what many have long described as the Holy Grail of Mauritian politics — a prize so coveted, and so perilous, that every previous attempt to seize it has ended in failure.

Since its sweeping mandate in late 2024, the government has been walking a tightrope. On one side lies the promise of a “New Mauritius”: a republic shorn of communal classifications, modernised democratic practices, and structural injustices inherited from the colonial era. On the other lies the entrenched compromises and mutual vetoes that have paralysed constitutional evolution for more than two decades. As the process now shifts from consultation to legislative drafting, one question looms large: will electoral reform become the defining achievement of this government’s legacy, or the fault line that fractures its coalition?

The Allure of Modernisation

Designed in the run-up to independence, Mauritius’s current electoral system prioritised stability and communal reassurance over proportional representation. Once again, the 2024 election exposed the shortcomings of the system. With roughly 62% of the popular vote, the Alliance du Changement secured 60 of the 62 directly elected seats. This near-total dominance — echoing the “60-0” outcomes of 1982 and 1995 — left close to 40% of voters effectively unrepresented and reduced parliamentary opposition to a token presence.

Such outcomes may deliver governability, but a National Assembly without a credible opposition is a weak check on executive power, no matter how well intentioned the government of the day may be.

The government’s proposed reform roadmap seeks to address this imbalance. A “dose of proportionality,” combined with an Anti-Defection Law and a long-overdue Political Financing Act, is presented as a package to modernise Mauritian democracy. The proposal to require that at least one-third of candidates be women, alongside the removal of the obligation for candidates to declare their ethnicity, reinforces the Alliance’s narrative: this is about merit, equality, and national unity rather than communal arithmetic.

In principle, these goals are difficult to oppose. In practice, however, they collide with deeply rooted political realities.

The Reality of Realpolitik

The path to electoral reform in Mauritius is littered with the wreckage of failed attempts. The principal obstacle has always been the Best Loser System (BLS). Introduced in 1968 as a constitutional safeguard, the BLS was designed to reassure minority communities that independence would not translate into permanent exclusion from power. It remains, to this day, one of the most sensitive pillars of the constitutional order.

Critics point out that the BLS relies on 1972 census data and forces candidates to classify themselves along communal lines. Yet for many within minority communities, particularly among the General Population and Muslim communities, the BLS is less an embarrassment than an insurance policy. It is the guarantee that electoral landslides will not erase them from the legislature altogether.

Abolishing the BLS without a replacement that is not only fair but also perceived as safer would be politically reckless. In matters of identity and representation, perception matters as much as mathematical logic. Any proportional representation (PR) mechanism must therefore inspire greater confidence than the safety net it seeks to dismantle.

Complicating matters further is the internal dynamic of the Alliance du Changement itself. It is, by design, a broad tent. The MMM, under Paul Bérenger, has championed proportional representation for years — not merely as a democratic ideal, but as a strategy for long-term relevance in a political system that has often marginalised it electorally. The Labour Party (PTr), by contrast, has historically been more cautious, having benefited repeatedly from the majoritarian system.

Here, the devil lies in the detail. A high PR threshold — say 10% — would favour established parties and likely exclude smaller ones such as Rezistans ek Alternativ. A lower threshold, however, could fragment Parliament, produce hung legislatures, and reintroduce the instability that the current system was designed to avoid.

It is within this grey zone that much of the reported unease within the MMM likely resides. Is the Prime Minister truly prepared to trade a dominant parliamentary majority for a reformed system that might dilute executive control? Conversely, PR could allow the MMM to contest elections independently rather than as a junior partner, positioning itself as a post-election “kingmaker” able to negotiate alliances on its own terms. Such a scenario would guarantee the continued relevance of the MMM — but it would also fundamentally alter Mauritius’s political equilibrium.

A Call for Caution and Consensus

Opposition to electoral reform for its own sake would be both short-sighted. Reform is necessary. But if it is to happen, it must be done properly. A reform perceived as being “thrust down the throat” of the population, without deep and genuine national consensus, would be a poisoned chalice rather than a Holy Grail.

The Mauritian Constitution, for all its imperfections, has delivered decades of political stability and social harmony in a plural society. It should not be altered to suit the narrow, short-term calculations of parties anxious about future electoral tides. A “dose of proportionality” must not become a mechanism through which party leaders appoint loyalists via closed lists, weakening the bond between elected representatives and voters.

Democratic reform that centralises power within party hierarchies is not reform at all; it is regression disguised as progress.

The Way Forward

As the Constitutional Review Commission begins its work following today’s deadline, the government faces a decisive test of leadership. Transparency and inclusion must be non-negotiable. The population should not be treated as passive spectators in a process that will reshape the very foundations of their democracy.

Three priorities stand out:

• Broaden the Circle: Consultation must go beyond written submissions. Town-hall meetings, youth forums, and engagement with local authorities are essential if reform is to reflect lived realities rather than elite consensus.
• Transparency First: Any draft legislation should be made public well in advance of parliamentary debate. Trust cannot be built behind closed doors.
• Address the Core Issues: Electoral reform cannot be reduced to PR alone. It must include internal party democratisation, the rationalisation of constituency sizes to ensure that each vote carries comparable weight, and firm action against “money politics” through an effective Political Financing Act.

Electoral reform is a high-stakes gamble. Done wisely, it could renew Mauritian democracy for a generation and stand as the defining legacy of the Alliance du Changement. Done hastily or cynically, it risks creating more problems than it solves — undermining trust, destabilising coalitions, and reopening communal anxieties long thought to be fading.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 30 January 2026