Political Financing in Mauritius

Editorial

Lessons from Abroad and the Urgent Need for Reform

The recent revelations in Parliament concerning alleged breaches of election expense limits during the 2024 National Assembly elections have reignited a debate that has long been overdue in Mauritius: the regulation and transparency of political financing. On 9 December 2025, a Private Notice Question tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, Joe Lesjongard, sought to clarify the status of complaints against elected and non-elected candidates who may have exceeded the statutory spending limits set out in the Representation of the People’s Act. The Prime Minister’s detailed reply laid bare the complexity of enforcing these rules in the modern political and economic context.

Political Financing. Pic – CEPR

Under the Act, each candidate’s election agent is required to submit a sworn return within six weeks of the election results, detailing all expenditures incurred and contributions received. The law sets a maximum spending ceiling of Rs 150,000 for party-affiliated candidates and Rs 250,000 for independents. Yet, the 2024 elections revealed that several candidates, both returned and unreturned, had exceeded these limits, prompting multiple complaints across police stations nationwide. From Piton to Port Mathurin, Mahebourg to Curepipe, the official record lists complainants and candidates whose returns are under scrutiny. In response, the Electoral Commissioner has received no direct complaints, but the Central CID has been investigating alleged breaches since May 2025. Several candidates have even filed revised affidavits, claiming that some expenditures were unrelated to their campaigns.

The episode highlights a structural problem that transcends individual missteps: the statutory spending limits, unchanged since 2001, are widely regarded as unrealistic in the context of modern electoral campaigns. They fail to reflect the cost of advertising, constituency outreach, digital campaigns, and other essential elements of political communication. In effect, these outdated rules create a grey zone that not only encourages overspending but also fosters selective enforcement, eroding public confidence in the democratic process.

Past attempts to legislate on political financing, such as the 2019 proposal, failed to address these underlying issues. That legislation was criticized for disproportionately favouring established parties and for allowing donations to Trusts, which effectively provided an avenue for the wealthy and corporate entities to exert influence behind the scenes. By exempting such contributions from disclosure, the law would have reinforced inequalities between parties, and more troublingly, legitimized corporate influence over policy-making.

It is an open secret that in Mauritius, private sector financing plays a decisive role in electoral campaigns. Evidence abounds: government endorsements for major projects, tax exemptions granted to selected firms in specific economic activities, and the strategic allocation of public contracts have consistently correlated with political donations. These practices undermine the principle of governance in the national interest and perpetuate the perception of a political system beholden to corporate power rather than accountable to citizens.

The dangers of unchecked political financing are not theoretical. As noted by constitutional scholar Albie Sachs in his 2001-2002 report on electoral reform, corporate contributions often come with expectations. “They never give something for nothing,” he observed, warning that the influence of private wealth can skew public policy and compromise democratic integrity. Countries that have recognized this threat have adopted strict measures: Canada, for instance, bans corporate and union donations entirely, while France imposes rigorous caps on individual contributions and enforces full disclosure requirements. Even the United States, with its infamous Citizens United ruling, illustrates the risk of unregulated private money, where unlimited contributions through political action committees can fundamentally alter the balance of electoral competition.

Mauritius has yet to enact such comprehensive legislation. The consequences are visible in the 2024 elections: lavish campaign spending, murky funding sources, and complaints filed long after the electoral process concluded. The current legal framework benefits incumbents and party leaders who control the flow of funds, while the public remains largely in the dark regarding the true cost of influencing political outcomes. Without reform, elections risk becoming competitions of financial firepower rather than contests of ideas, vision, and public service.

Several practical solutions have been proposed internationally. One approach is the introduction of state-funded campaigns, where public resources are allocated to parties and candidates according to transparent formulas. This method, used in countries like Germany and Sweden, reduces dependency on private donors and ensures a more level playing field. Another approach is strict caps on private donations, combined with mandatory disclosure of all contributions above a minimal threshold. Enforcement mechanisms are crucial: independent electoral commissions must have the authority to audit, investigate, and sanction breaches promptly. Failure to do so invites cynicism and may render laws symbolic rather than functional.

Mauritius has an opportunity to learn from these experiences. The Labour Party-MMM-ND-ReA alliance, which campaigned on a platform of “rupture” with entrenched practices, has signalled its intention to review the statutory spending limits and introduce legislation on political party funding. This is a promising step, but the devil is in the detail. Effective reform must address several challenges simultaneously: it must limit excessive private influence, ensure transparent reporting of all contributions, enforce expenditure caps realistically, and empower independent institutions to monitor compliance. Without this, the cycle of complaints, delayed investigations, and selective accountability is likely to continue.

Moreover, reform must consider the broader implications for democratic governance. Political financing is not just about fairness in elections; it touches on the very integrity of policy-making. In Mauritius, questions persist regarding the allocation of Smart City development permits, environmental approvals for high-value tourism projects, and the privatisation of public utilities. When political parties rely heavily on private contributions, there is an inherent risk that policy decisions will reflect donor interests rather than the public good. By legislating clear rules and enforcing transparency, Mauritius can help restore public confidence in its institutions and ensure that democracy serves citizens, not corporations.

Yet, reform faces obstacles. Established parties and financial stakeholders may resist measures that reduce their influence, and the public may be impatient for results, especially given the slow pace of investigations into past overspending. In this context, political courage is required. Legislators must balance the legitimate costs of campaigning with the imperative of accountability. Limits should be realistic, reporting requirements clear, and enforcement mechanisms robust. Civil society, media, and citizens must also play a watchdog role, holding both politicians and regulators accountable.

Ultimately, political financing is more than a technical matter; it is a reflection of democratic health. Mauritius stands at a crossroads. The revelations from the 2024 elections underscore the risks of outdated laws and weak enforcement. They also present an opportunity: by studying international best practices, introducing modern spending limits, requiring full disclosure, and considering partial or full public funding of campaigns, the country can create a system that promotes fair competition, curbs undue private influence, and strengthens trust in democratic institutions.

The road ahead will not be easy. Reforming political financing is politically sensitive and technically complex. But the alternative — continuing a system that favours the wealthy, undermines transparency, and diminishes public trust — is unacceptable. Mauritius has the legal framework, the civil society capacity, and the political mandate to act. What remains is the political will to implement meaningful reform. The upcoming legislative proposals on party funding, if drafted and enforced properly, could mark a turning point for the nation’s democracy, ensuring that elections are won on ideas and public support, not on financial clout.

In the end, political financing is not merely about money; it is about integrity, accountability, and the future of governance. Mauritius has watched other democracies struggle with, and sometimes succumb to, the corrosive influence of private contributions. It can choose a different path: one where the rules are clear, the limits enforced, and the voices of citizens — not corporations — shape public policy. If Mauritius acts decisively, it can lead by example in the region, demonstrating that a small island nation can indeed uphold the highest standards of political integrity.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 December 2025