Electoral Reform: What Next?

Politics

No one wishes to upset the political balance in the country or provoke an unnecessary backlash, but sometimes — even unwittingly — ‘fools rush where angels fear to tread’

By Sada Reddi

First, the good news. The Government has decided to embark on electoral reform and invited the public to submit their proposals to the Prime Minister’s Office. A Constitutional Review Committee will be set up to preside over the reforms. This initiative has raised great expectations and will certainly receive wide responses from the electorate. It is too early to know the composition of the Committee and its terms of reference, but one can already speculate about the possible direction it may have to take, as it will hold the immense responsibility to craft an electoral framework for the next 50 years or so.

The responsibility is heightened because electoral representation is a crucial element of a democratic, plural society and is the concern of every citizen. It fosters political stability, fair representation, the promotion of inclusive policies, social harmony, and, above all, governmental legitimacy. The converse is also evident: in numerous nations, flawed electoral design has led to political instability, civil war, and the rise of totalitarian regimes.

Hence, the constitution of the Constitutional Review Committee is of prime importance in the process. If it is composed of politicians or members of political parties, self-interest and partisan considerations may drive them to propose changes aimed merely at winning the next general elections. It is therefore important to exclude politicians, for they will ultimately have to vote on these reforms at a later stage; they cannot be both party and judge in the exercise.

In general, one expects members to be chosen from diverse and representative segments of society, and not to be confined exclusively to constitutionalists, legal experts, political scientists, or members of the elite. The Committee should be sufficiently large, but not so large as to become unwieldy. It is also expected that the Committee will establish several subcommittees to distil the views and perspectives of the public and to prepare a public report on the core issues, which should be published together with all its minutes.

In 1964, Professor De Smith, during his preliminary consultations, received 40 submissions from the public and even met Ajum Dahal and a delegation of the Tamil United Party, in addition to holding interviews with all political parties and other stakeholders. In 2000, Justice Albie Sachs received 70 written memoranda, heard oral submissions during more than 50 sessions, and held three public sessions in both Mauritius and Rodrigues.

Whereas the two commissions mentioned above undertook a review of the Constitution, the present one will focus on electoral reform. Nevertheless, one can expect between 80 and 100 submissions from civil society and other organizations. These will then need to be discussed further to reach consensus, and the proposed changes should be tested by statisticians, made public, and finalized after additional consultations before proceeding to legal drafting. The method of voting — either strictly along party lines or as a free vote — is at the discretion of the members of the Assembly. A free vote is advisable, as it allows Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) to cast a ballot they can individually justify to their constituents in the upcoming elections.

A brief historical survey confirms that electoral reform has been the most contentious element in our constitutional history. This is principally because, following 1948, the expansion of political power helped counter the entrenched economic power of the oligarchy, initiating a redistribution of authority along liberal-democratic lines. The Colonial Government’s attempts to tilt the balance in favour of conservative forces met fierce resistance from the Mauritius Labour Party, which explains its rejection of proportional representation.

As a result of the deadlock on proposed reforms, the Trustram-Eve Commission was established. It recommended a disguised form of proportional representation: the creation of 40 single-member constituencies, which fragmented the electorate to such an extent that, in 1959, Dr Ramgoolam managed to retain his seat only in the final week of the campaign, against Mr Beedasee. On 21 September 1965, Dr Seewoosagur Ramgoolam objected to the proposal of having 20 two-member constituencies and 20 seats allocated on a party list. He walked out of the Lancaster Conference, followed by Sir Abdool Razack Mohamed.

Two days later, on 23 September 1965, it was the turn of the Parti Mauricien Social Démocrate to withdraw from the Conference, ostensibly because it was denied a referendum on Independence versus Association — although the disagreement was publicly presented to its electorate as being linked to compensation for Diego Garcia.

Later, the Mauritius Labour Party again rejected the Banwell Commission’s recommendation for proportional representation and corrective measures, arguing, in the words of Harold Walter, that the Commission ‘wanted to put the opposition in power.’ As a result, modifications were introduced, leading to the implementation of the current “best-loser system” to ensure adequate representation for various ethnic groups within the multi-member constituencies.

So, electoral reform has remained a very contentious issue, for there are inevitably winners and losers — at least in the way it is perceived by the population and by political parties. Even Sachs’s proposals twenty-five years ago failed to secure consensus within the government alliance, and since then, all subsequent proposals for electoral reform have proved unacceptable and have had to be shelved. Even the introduction of a five or ten percent threshold for a party to qualify for proportional representation — conditional upon securing at least one elected member — entails both advantages and drawbacks. Nonetheless, the representation of smaller parties in the Assembly is essential to enhancing the inclusiveness and democratic legitimacy of government.

Up to now, small parties have had little chance of getting elected. With proportional representation, however, this may well become a thing of the past. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a small party with only a few members could end up determining the government of the day. Given that 60 percent of the electorate do not identify with the major parties, and that candidates of small parties in three constituencies in 2024 obtained between 11 and 31 percent of the votes, one can easily imagine a scenario in which a small party adopts a deliberate strategy of inviting all minor parties, groups, and independents to register under a single party label. Such a party could potentially secure around 15 percent of the national vote, obtain five or six seats through proportional representation, and become the kingmaker in forming a government. This strategy has never been attempted before, but it could well occur in the future.

Electoral reform will inevitably give rise to many more issues, several of which will have constitutional implications — ranging from renewed claims for community representation, to the future of the Best Loser system, the registration of political parties, and political financing, among others.

One must also take into account that, since 2014, society has undergone significant changes, and we remain largely uncertain about their implications for political behaviour. The shifting sands of the electoral landscape have confounded political pundits, and in the 2024 elections the electorate proved unresponsive to the material incentives offered by the previous government. Voters turned out in large numbers not necessarily to endorse the current government, but primarily to reclaim their freedom and liberty. ‘Change for the sake of change’ may well become the new political slogan.

The mainstream press no longer functions as the traditional fourth estate; its influence has been overtaken by social media, which has effectively become a powerful political actor in its own right. Any reforms introduced will therefore be subjected to intense and critical scrutiny by the electorate, and any misstep or blunder by the government in implementing such reforms risks provoking what might be called ‘a revolt of the lambs.’

Admittedly, this article is based on many unverified assumptions and is presented in a preliminary manner to encourage deeper reflection on electoral reforms. We live in uncertain times, and both political economy and political philosophy struggle to fully unravel the psychology of political behaviour — especially in a complex society like Mauritius, with its mosaic of communities. As in the past, governments will seek to retain control over the entire process, and it can be expected that all parties will propose changes primarily to maximize their own electoral advantage.

This is why it is imperative for the government to pursue a win-win outcome, as the population is vigilant in ensuring that their interests are safeguarded. No one wishes to upset the political balance in the country or provoke an unnecessary backlash, but sometimes — even unwittingly — ‘fools rush where angels fear to tread.’

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 5 December 2025