This is a followup to my last article wherein I made a few observations on the operation of the proposed party list in replacement of the Best Losers. I allow myself to be guided by the paper from Rama Sithanen in your issue of the 9th April.

This week, after having gone through the paper from Rama Sithanen in your issue of the 9th April, I allow myself to be guided by his advice that we should be mindful of the mathematical implications of the proposed election of eighteen or twenty Best Losers. This, to steer clear of the “lethal mistakes” that may arise during the process of implementation. We have in mind the maxim that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.

I have been told that a doctoral thesis contains a section where the author explains the limitations of his work through the constraints he has experienced and states the areas that may benefit from further research to add to current knowledge in a specific field. We have not had the priviledge of going through the thesis in question. We suggest that the Mauritius Research Council, through its national researchers, may find this a fertile field of research that may be beneficial to future generations.

Let me come to the point - the choice of the best losers on the assumption that an objective exercise is carried out based on the highest percentages of votes cast in favour of candidates. However,this would lead to absurd results as the number of electors in some constituencies is far below the average.

According to the statistics on register, 2012 (from an article by Ness Fair in your issue of the 16th April),Constituency No3 reckons 22,834 electors as against 60,002 inConstituency No. 14. Definitely, the fourth candidate in No. 3, even if he wins 35% of the total vote in his constituency, will have won only 7,992 votes while the fourth candidate in Constituency No14, with the same percentage of 35%, will have obtained 21,000 votes. So, we are not comparing like with like. The maintenance of the size of the electorates in the 20 constituencies would work injustice to many 4th or 5th candidates who might hope to be considered as best losers in terms of percentages.

Our reasoning leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the Electoral Boundary Commission should be allowed to perform its constitutional role without hindrance in accordance with S. 39(3) of The Constitution so that we may have more or less the same number of electors in the 20 constituencies on mainland Mauritius - without creating any unjustified doubt of gerrymandering.

The Electoral Supervisory Commission would continue to act as a watchdog even if Best Losers are selected on the basis of percentages of the total number of votes cast for parties in the 20 constituencies. However, one should beware of the complex formula that has been imposed on autonomous Rodrigues, allegedly borrowed from Tobago. One should ensure that candidates of the appropriate party that scores the highest percentages of the votes in their respective constituencies are elected... and not at the whims and caprices of their leaders.

In the last exercise, the allocation of all the six Island Region seats to the opposition created an incongruous situation. OPR of Serge Clair which had won four of the six Local Regions, i.e eight of the 12 Local Regions seats was faced, after the exercise of PR by the Electoral Supervisory Commission, with an opposition of ten candidates. The Commission had to have recourse to another section of the RRA Act to maintain OPR as the winner with three additional seats. At the time many people, even on the mainland,were mystified. However, Rama Sithanen was among the few w h o understood the complex calculation. His assurances had the effect of appeasing the fears of Serge Clair. The arrangement was according to the provision of the law.

Even to-day, I suspect many of our compatriots in Rodrigues have not mastered the method of choosing the winners in the PR round. This reminds us again of the danger of putting in place a PR system that is understood only by the Commission and a few people who are good at mathematics but not by the bulk of the electorate. An electoral system should seek not to confuse but to be clear and simple. It should avoid ambiguity that gives rise to unnecessary divergences of interpretation.

Finally, there is the untenable argument that the threshold to qualify a party for PR seats should be less than 10%. The Westminster model has always favoured strong governments at the risk of a hung Parliament. I do not recall the latter situation occurring in the UK. France, at a point of time, suffered from acute political instability because of the multiplicity of parties with a few seats in Parliament. In the UK, there have, more often than not, been strong governments with less than 50% of the national vote.

Margaret Thatcher was able to introduce important changes in the British economy thanks to a series of comfortable majority. In Mauritius, as well, we must guard against the emergence of too many parties in Parliament - for obvious reasons. A last word to end this reflection. We are still waiting to see how Rodrigues will be integrated in the new formulae. Rodrigues is currently represented by Four MLAs thanks to the Best Loser system. Every proposal that claims that it will ultimately redound to the interest of our people (dans l’intérêt du pays) should explain clearly how this would be so.