Mauritian expatriates want right to vote in Mauritius
Written by Editor Thursday, 06 October 2011 11:23
Electoral Reform
There is a lot of talk these days about electoral reform in Mauritius. Consultations have been taking place of late between Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam and the leaders of the other political parties for a consensus about the changes to be introduced
On the opening of the present Parliament, in his speech outlining the Programme of Government for the fresh mandate, Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam told the House that legislation would be introduced for the reform of the electoral system in Mauritius.
A similar pledge was made by the MSM/MMM coalition government of 2000 in their parliamentary programme resulting in the Sachs Commission in 2001, whose recommendations have never been implemented.
It has been reported that the present PM, Navin Ramgoolam, will set up a new commission under the chairmanship of French Law Professor Guy Garcassonne (?) to make a study of the country’s electoral system, taking into consideration the Sachs report, and to propose up-to-date recommendations.
In view of this new electoral commission, we take the opportunity, as expatriates, to reiterate to the Mauritius government our request for the Right to Vote in Mauritius to be extended to Mauritian citizens living overseas, i.e. in the UK, Europe, Australia, United States, Canada etc. Those Mauritian nationals should not be ignored at election time.
The terms of reference of the new electoral reform commission could comprise the studying and reporting on a case for the overseas Mauritian citizens to be included on the Mauritian register of electors.
Present Electoral System
The Mauritius electoral system handed over to the colony by Britain on its accession to independence in 1968 has worked well so far with the First Past The Post (FPTP) application.
It has worked well essentially in safeguarding the interests of every ethnic group making up the Mauritian nation. Why de we have to tamper with it now? The argument is that it perpetuates the concept of sectarianism in Mauritius through what is termed the Best Loser system. The fact is that this very Best Loser system, a corrective measure to ensure adequate representation in Parliament of every ethnic of the country, has satisfied the Constitutional needs of Mauritius for the past 43 years that it enjoys the sovereignty status.
Sectarianism is a pejorative word but it cannot be denied that Mauritians are labelled in accordance with their cultural background and even fragmented into religious denominations within one single ethnic community. For example, the majority Hindu community itself is fragmented into the Bhramin, Rajput, Vaish, Marathi, Gujurati, Telegu and Tamil identities, among others, and each group wants to be sure that its aspirations are not trampled upon. Under these circumstances, sectarianism in Mauritius cannot be destroyed, however how much we dislike it. “Chaque jacot protège so montagne”, is the motto of the Mauritian people.
Rainbow Nation
We pride ourselves to be a rainbow nation but we refuse to accept the fact that this rainbow is made up of many colours. We are multiracial for the mere fact that the people of the island originated from various parts of the world and the citizens of Mauritius will never deny their cultural background to satisfy the whims and dictates of politicians. (Only the Dodo was the true Mauritian, said eminent personality Malcolm de Chazal).
Does Mauritius need an executive president like America, or is the country happy with a president like the Indian one without any executive power? Do we need a Head of State à la française, a system whereby the president shares power with a prime minister? All these systems of government have been explored by Mauritian politicians, who also talk of a president of the Israel style.
Does Mauritius need the Proportional Representation (PR) system that is being talked about in the context of the electoral reform? The Mauritius Labour Party fought tooth and nail in the 1960s against the introduction of PR in Mauritius as demanded by some political parties before Independence.
Labour mounted a gigantic island-wide campaign to prevent the British government from ramming PR down the throat of the country. “Over my dead body shall we have PR in Mauritius” said, campaigner Renganaden Seeneevassen, an eminent lawyer and a senior figure of the Labour Party, who with Labour leader Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam (first PM) stood firm their ground. The country got independence without PR.
Today, even the Labour Party is talking of an electoral provision combining the FPTP application, consisting of the existing 62 MPs, plus an element of PR application with an additional number of MPs (likely to be an increase of the number of parliamentarians by one-third). Will the PR introduction result in a modification of the electoral boundaries and an increase in the number of constituencies? How much will the extra MPs cost the country? The extra MP will enhance the strength of political parties in every respect but is the additional cost justified at a time of world economic crisis?
FPTP/PR combination
Thus, with the combination of FPTP and PR, the country will rid itself Best Loser system. (It may be remembered the British people turned down PR––Alternative Vote–– through the recent referendum).
The other reason for the electoral revision is that the existing system has outlived its purpose, the politicians say. It seems therefore to be a case of change for the sake of change. Because it’s old we must get rid of it. On the other hand, there is a feeling it’s all a political manoeuvre on which agree all the political parties. It may enhance the powers of the President of the Republic for the next incumbent.
It must be agreed that there is a case for a revision of the system without its demolition, e.g. to ensure adequate female representation in the National Assembly, to prevent influential rich people and businesses to gain political favours in funding election campaigns, etc.
There is also a case for the RIGHT TO VOTE to be extended to the Mauritian citizens living in other countries. How many times have we heard politicians say that they would like to tap into the resources available within the Mauritian Diaspora. The Diaspora should therefore not be ignored.
Peter Chellen
