The Carcassonne Report accepts the analysis contained in the Sachs’ report, regarding the shortcomings of the present system, but categorically rejects all of Sachs’ recommendations.

Instead Carcassonne makes the following recommendations: There will be a drastically reduced number of constituencies, all bigger than the present ones, and of different sizes in terms of number of inhabitants. The new electoral boundaries will be established by a Commission, and will need Parliamentary approval the rejection of the proposal, however, will require a 2/3 majority.

Each constituency will elect 4 to 7 members of the National Assembly, depending on the size of the Constituency (except Rodrigues where only 2 will be elected). The total number elected will be about 68, reaching 70, in case some constituencies increase in size.

Electors in each Constituency will express a single vote for a blocked Party List of between 4 and 7 candidates, and depending on the percentage of votes each Party gets, a proportional number will be elected from its list, from the top downwards, and with a prescribed proportion of women. Up to 1/3 of the Cabinet members can be made up of “personnalités de qualité” who are not elected members of the National Assembly. Do they find it distasteful to participate in an electoral campaign?

A member of the National Assembly who leaves his/her party will sit as an independent, and another candidate from the list of that party will be nominated. The Prime Minister keeps his powers of dissolution of Parliament at any time.

LALIT’s comments: Although the Carcassonne Report states that it is in favour of national parties, it does not seem to address the possibility of communal parties gathering strength through this system. Lalit believes that a greater number of smaller constituencies would be more likely to reassure so-called “minorities”.

Carcassonne does not seem to agree with a mixed PR system, where there are 2 different categories of members of Parliament: some from constituencies, and others from a national list. Yet he proposes two different categories of Ministers: some elected, and others simply in the good books of the PM. LALIT is against non-elected Ministers.

He equally does not think it necessary to increase the number of members of Parliament, and his argumentation is based on a comparison with the ratios in Europe. He seems blissfully unaware of the fact that the present Ramgoolam regime has hardly any backbencher whatsoever. Lalit believes that a greater number of MPs would be useful.

But perhaps Carcassonne has been very badly briefed. Otherwise, why would he refer on several occasions to “l’Ile Maurice”, “population de l’Ile”, “besoins de l’Ile”, when he is making recommendations that apply to Mauritius Island, Rodrigues Island, Agalega, St.Brandon and the Chagos Archipelago ?

Electoral Reform is a democratic process, not an academic exercise that takes place in some learned university faculty. A few years ago, the PM Ramgoolam announced publicly that there would be debates and consultations involving all political parties. But then perhaps the PM needed “his” Report, since the MMM and MSM already had their Sach’s Report.