Electoral Reform: What Next?

There are other crucial battles to fight: ensuring prosperity and sustainability, and recognizing that true inclusion requires confronting discrimination in a society where electoral reform may not be needed

By Sada Reddi

It is surprising, but not really so when one thinks a little more about it, that forty journalists of a most widely read daily newspaper with ears to the ground did not in their New Year’s wishes express their desire for an electoral reform in 2026. Not even a single reference to the subject, though they aspire towards a more inclusive, compassionate and sustainable society. This stands in stark contrast to the various newspaper editorials, interviews, and articles that have sought to keep electoral reform in the public spotlight.

Politicians being interviewed can be expected to toe the party line or to be politically correct by embracing the prevailing narrative on proportional representation, even though they may privately adhere to completely different views on several aspects of the proposed reform. Even the Prime Minister’s New Year message highlighted rightly that economic reform remains the priority for 2026.

One may safely conclude that the public’s priorities remain the high cost of living, persistent inflation, and law and order, alongside the urgent need to restore economic growth and build an inclusive society. Nevertheless, the government continues to pursue electoral reform. However, inviting public submissions by the end of January may prove ineffective, as the festive season is hardly an ideal time to engage public attention.

However, at this stage, the public remains in the dark about the next stage of the consultation process once submissions have been received. It is expected that a signed report will be published by the Prime Minister’s Office with its findings and recommendations so that the public can further discuss the recommendations and consensus reached about the proposed reforms. What mechanism will be put in place for the public to discuss the recommendations is still unknown. These different stages are crucial for transparency, to win public trust and for any reform to gain the stamp of legitimacy.

One may arrogantly dismiss the need for these different stages on the ground that all issues concerning electoral reform had been discussed at least since 1964, at the Lancaster Conference in 1965, and by several electoral commissions and by foreign and local constitutionalists. It is true that the various issues have been discussed — proportional representation, various models of multi-member constituencies, “good losers,” separate electoral rolls, constitutional court — to reach a consensus ultimately on the present constitution and electoral system. While everybody agrees that the system has worked very well and reflects generally even the demographic profile of the population while ensuring political stability, the need for reform is argued because of a changing context and society.

However, no one has been able to identify empirically what has changed for electoral reform to become so imperative, except that opposition parties feel that their leverage to get into power or to become kingmaker is considerably reduced by our “First-Past-The-Post” system. This is a legitimate aspiration for any party, or more so for an opposition party which may find it extremely difficult to win national support to get into power especially if its main electoral base remains largely and narrowly regional and ethnic.

The need for a new census or a social survey has been avoided so far for several reasons which may not stand to reason when representation is considered a crucial factor for an electoral system. Maybe a census is avoided so as not to further politicize ethnic representation which is already politicized by all the major parties. On the other hand, even if a new census were to be carried out, it would hardly change the political configuration given the demographic change is marginal, if one considers the census figures of 2022 which show the Hindu community to be 49.6% compared with the 51.8% of 1972, and certainly not the erroneous figures forwarded to the United Nations in 2025.

Yet there is also the strong argument that the 60-0 or 57-3 election result is an aberration in a Westminster two-party system which is expected to produce a government party and an opposition party for democracy to work. Even that idea has been debunked elsewhere on the grounds that even a 60-zero result has not produced any problem of governance. Nor are the entrenched clauses at risk to be wiped away as our democracy has been consolidated by Article One of our Constitution and the need for a referendum for any major constitutional change. Even reforming an electoral system which forms part of our constitutional architecture may have to pass that litmus test.

Any increase in the number of MLAs, whether 12 or 20, is perceived as grotesque and reprehensible, especially in the present economic context, the more so as the electorate remains largely disenchanted with its representatives. Further, the 12 to 20 formula of 2014 has been massively rejected by the electorate and to resuscitate it amounts to whipping a dead horse.

There are other issues which will be raised during the debate, particularly representation in our mosaic society for “invisible” communities which cannot be easily brushed under the carpet. Also equally controversial is the financing of political parties in a context in which the corporate sector simply ‘buy’ political parties to tilt the balance of economic power on their side to counteract any political power given by the electorate. Efforts to come with a law on party financing will remain cosmetic simply because political parties resent having to register with the Registrar of Associations, just like any other democratic organisations like trade unions and the hundreds of organisations, for a number of reasons but fundamentally because they want to avoid public scrutiny of their financial donations, more particularly from foreign organisations.

All these issues make electoral reform a tightrope walking. Even if there is a breakthrough, the intended and unintended consequences of reform will remain a riddle to be deciphered. It could well provide some symbolic concessions to aggrieved segments of the population. It could well tilt the balance of power which has existed since independence between economic and political power as the oligarchy too has jumped on the bandwagon singing the chorus of proportional representation, causing such a backlash that could result in dire consequences for the economy and society.

We say symbolic concessions because to build an inclusive society in Mauritius demands much more than electoral reform or even consolidating our various institutions, although these would certainly kickstart some desirable changes. We have had a constitution which guarantees our human rights and institutions to enforce these rights. But so far it has been extremely difficult to create an inclusive society that we all aspire because discrimination in our society operates in more subtle ways.

Discrimination persists in daily life through patriarchy, gender subordination, and exploitative, low-paid labour. These issues are compounded by poverty, systemic marginalisation within public and private institutions, and the dominance of oligopolies. Furthermore, what is often labelled as ‘merit’ is frequently the product of economic and cultural capital — assets an individual cannot easily acquire through hard work alone. One must also recognize that informal structures of discrimination and support exist in a small society like Mauritius, where an individual has a greater chance of thriving by capitalizing on social and family networks — particularly political and economic ones — that often override ethnicity. This dynamic is well-documented in research on how these informal hierarchies sustain a society divided by both class and ethnic lines.

These observations are not intended to diminish the importance of electoral reform, but rather to place it within a broader perspective of improving representation and adopting a ‘politics of presence’ for our mosaic society. Crucially, there are other vital battles to fight: not only to ensure the country remains prosperous and sustainable but to acknowledge that building a truly inclusive society requires tackling both formal and informal systems of discrimination in a society in which electoral reform may not even be necessary.

At this stage, it is premature to anticipate how the electoral reform process will evolve. One must wait for the submissions, the official report, and the public’s response to its recommendations before the direction of the debate and its ultimate outcome become clear. But it is most likely that, given the relentless insistence to get the reform and nothing but the reform, a ‘pound of flesh’ may eventually be granted — but in a way that avoids spilling a drop of blood.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 23 January 2026