Dr. Sithanen’s work represents a valuable addition to the study of electoral politics of Mauritius and maps a credible approach to reform. It is based necessarily on a number of reasonable assumptions. However, I wonder whether all the assumptions are warranted and therefore whether the recommendations are as necessary or desirable as advocated. I would therefore like to propose an alternative way of resolving the current impasse by essentially relying on the wisdom of voters and the healing effects of time. Let me present the recommendations and then the rationale:

Recommendation 1: A constitutional amendment be passed as soon as possible doing away with the requirement that candidates state their religious affiliation or ethnic origin.

Recommendation 2: Under the same constitutional amendment, there should be a clause that states that any candidate who declines to state their religious affiliation or ethnic origin forfeit their right to be considered for entry to parliament under the Best Loser System.

Recommendation 3: The Best Loser System be strengthened by requiring that any candidate who wishes to enter parliament through the BLS swear an affidavit that s/he represents the group they purport to belong to.

Recommendation 4: Any party that obtains a minimum percentage of votes, say 10%, will have standing to challenge the selection of a candidate who is thought to be entering parliament by gaming the system. Individuals shall have no such standing.

Rationale:

Mauritius has undergone substantial sociological changes in the 40+ years since independence. These changes, however, are not uniform across the country and to assume that religious or communal considerations have no place in politics is to deny reality. This is not the case even in a more advanced democracy like the United States.

Minorities have every right to be concerned about adequate representation. This is a safety valve for the country, a matter of pride and respect for each community, and it is an opportunity for different voices to be heard.

Dr. Sithanen’s point that parties have, on their own, chosen to consider communal and religious affiliations in allocating seats is well taken. Given the way politics has been practiced in Mauritius, it is unlikely that this will change. Regardless, party leaders’ judgment is no substitute for constitutional guarantees.

Still, there is a large constituency in Mauritius that is tired of the old politics of “balkanizing” people on the basis of religion and race or ethnicity. This constituency is likely to grow and may even constitute the entire population someday. If it comes to pass, then time will have done its work and the best loser system will have died a natural death. The more realistic scenario is that we will always be in some intermediate state. This is in fact a good place to be.

One of the complicating factors in the BLS is that it is not defined in a way that reflects today’s reality. It is no surprise then that one candidate decided to take advantage of the system. It is certain that others will do so in the future, if only to show that it is unworkable. Retaining the BLS without clarifying its intent is asking for trouble. This is not the time to engage in a bidding war among communities by opening up definitions of the terms in the BLS either. Providing a method of challenging the selection of a candidate under very strict guidelines is a way to mitigate the risk of actors behaving in unwelcome ways.

This obviously begs the question: How does a court make a decision on what group a person belongs to? This is not a question that can be answered simply by laying a bunch of criteria down. Moreover, it is a question that may have a different answer ten years from now. There is a simple but elegant way of resolving this issue, to wit, use contemporary community standards. This obviates the need to provide a current definition and allows for evolving standards at the same time.

The need to do away with declaration of one’s faith or ethnicity just to be a candidate in an election is an affront to everyone and needs to be done away immediately. There isn’t any obvious way of doing it and still retain the BLS except in the way outlined above. Doing away with the BLS is unwise, unjust, and unnecessarily complicates the political dialogue and simply provides an excuse for delaying needed reform.