The Unfinished Business of Electoral Reform

Editorial

The announcement by Acting Prime Minister & DPM Paul Bérenger, yesterday, has reignited a long-standing debate: how to modernise Mauritius’s electoral system so that it better reflects today’s political and social realities. Flanked by the symbolism of launching the initiative while the Prime Minister was on an official visit to India, Paul Bérenger unveiled two options intended to reshape the way Mauritians choose their representatives. Both combine the familiar First Past the Post (FPTP) model with a dose of proportional representation (PR), aiming to strengthen fairness and stability, while also considering the fate of the Best Loser System (BLS).

The proposals reflect a commitment to move beyond tokenism. As Paul Bérenger noted, the objective is to begin an open, inclusive consultation rather than waiting until the eve of the next elections. This is encouraging, for electoral reform has too often been relegated to the margins of political agendas, surfacing only when expediency dictated. The new Labour Party-MMM-ND-ReA coalition, elected on a manifesto of “rupture” with entrenched dysfunction, faces its first major test: whether it can transform pledges into a durable framework for democratic renewal.

Understanding the Proposals

Under the first option, the National Assembly would retain its 60 directly elected members – three per constituency across Mauritius – but add 20 PR seats. These would be allocated according to parties’ national vote share, using lists submitted before polling day. Importantly, the geographical map of constituencies would remain untouched, preserving the link between voters and their local MPs.

The second option mirrors this structure but retains four of the eight additional seats currently distributed under the BLS. The controversial aspect lies in the reliance on community data from the 1972 census, coupled with an optional declaration of community by candidates. Those opting out of such declarations would forgo eligibility for BLS seats, though they could still contest FPTP and PR seats.

By signalling flexibility — “these are not fixed in stone,” Bérenger said — the government has left the door open for further innovation. Yet the direction is clear: preserve the advantages of FPTP, enhance proportionality, and decide once and for all how to reconcile the BLS with today’s imperative for equality.

The Best Loser System

No discussion of electoral reform can sidestep the BLS. Conceived in 1965 on the recommendation of the Stonehouse Report, it was designed to heal intercommunal rifts after episodes of exclusion and unrest. The system ensured that minority communities could secure representation even if they failed to win outright in FPTP contests. While this arrangement arguably underpinned stability during independence and beyond, its flaws have grown harder to ignore.

Most notably, the BLS requires candidates to declare their ethnic affiliation, embedding communalism in the heart of politics. Since the last census with communal data was conducted in 1972, seat allocation now rests on what are considered to be anachronistic numbers. In a society that has grown markedly more diverse and interwoven, the logic of this practice also looks increasingly unsustainable. Paul Bérenger himself acknowledged the paradox: the BLS served its purpose but cannot remain frozen in time.

Beyond Mechanics: Confronting Structural Inequities

However, tinkering with seat formulas alone will not suffice. The real challenge lies in addressing the broader distortions of our political system. As we underlined in our earlier opinion articles, Mauritius continues to grapple with entrenched inefficiencies: opaque political financing, uneven constituency sizes, and a lack of internal democracy within parties.

Without a robust response, reforms risk becoming another cosmetic exercise. Previous attempts at regulating campaign finance, notably in 2019, were marred by loopholes that entrenched the advantage of major parties while legitimising corporate influence over policy. Donations channelled through trusts remained exempt, opening wide avenues for private money to shape public decisions — from energy concessions to Smart City permits and hotel developments in ecologically fragile zones.

The late Albie Sachs warned, in his seminal work on constitutional and electoral reform, that corporate patronage undermines democracy because “they never give something for nothing.” Those words echo today. Unless we break the financial nexus between big business and political machinery, reforms of voting rules alone will not cleanse governance of its deeper maladies.
In fact, the most glaring omission from Acting Prime Minister Paul Bérenger’s statement on electoral reform is the lack of a strong, transparent framework for political party financing. It is an open secret that the private sector plays a significant, and often decisive, role in bankrolling electoral campaigns. The correlation between political donations and government endorsements of business projects is undeniable. Major economic decisions — from the privatization of power production to the allocation of lucrative development permits (allegedly those relating to Smart Cities, IRS, etc) and public works contracts — raise serious questions about the influence of financial contributions on political decision-making.

The extravagant spending observed during political campaigns further exposes the necessity of regulating campaign financing. A potential solution to this problem would be the implementation of state-funded political campaigns. By legislating that all political financing comes from public funds, spending limits can be enforced, ensuring a level playing field for all candidates. While this would require public investment, the long-term benefit would be a governance model free from corporate interests, enabling policies to be designed in the national interest rather than in favour of a privileged few.

 Building Credibility Through Transparency

For the LP-MMM-ND-ReA alliance, credibility depends on a holistic approach. The government must resist the temptation to cherry-pick aspects of reform that offer short-term partisan gain. Instead, it should commit to a package encompassing:

1. Democratisation of political parties – Clear, inclusive rules for leadership selection, candidate nomination, and policy formulation.
2. Equitable constituency delimitation – Rationalising boundaries to uphold the principle of one person, one vote.
3. Comprehensive regulation of political finance – Banning corporate and anonymous donations, mandating transparency, and considering partial or full public funding of campaigns.
4. Strengthened oversight institutions – Empowering independent bodies – the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Supervisory Commission — to enforce election laws, monitor spending, and adjudicate disputes.

The public mood is cautiously hopeful. Mauritians have invested their trust in an alliance that promised “rupture” with an underperforming past. Delivering genuine reform would signal a decisive break from the cycles of expediency that have left earlier initiatives stranded.
A Test of Political Will
Ultimately, electoral reform is a test not of technical ingenuity but of political courage. The status quo serves entrenched actors, and any attempt to dismantle it will provoke resistance. But the cost of inaction is high: a democracy in which the best candidates are sidelined, governance is weakened, and voters grow cynical.
By embracing transparency, fairness, and inclusiveness, the government can redefine the rules of engagement and inject fresh legitimacy into our institutions. The next months will reveal whether the alliance of Labour, MMM, ND, and ReA intends to be a caretaker of inherited arrangements or an architect of a fairer order.

The moment demands leadership equal to the promise of “rupture”. If the Changement Alliance seizes it, Mauritius could enter a new chapter where elections no longer recycle the flaws of yesterday but nurture the promise of tomorrow.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 September 2025