Deepa Bhookhun
5 May 2008
opinion
Port Louis — Prime minister Ramgoolam's promises to initiate talks on electoral reform "after the 1st of May". There seems to be indications, however that the reform might not include the Best Loser System.
Government's intentions regarding the Best Loser System (BLS) and its abolition are getting more confusing by the day. A statement from Prime minister Navin Ramgoolam in his May Day speech seems to indicate that there are chances that the reform of the electoral system, consultations regarding which are due to begin soon, might not involve the BLS.
The give away statement was confusing because it was followed - and proceeded - by two contradicting ones. First Ramgoolam said, "If there is one group of people that does not feel at ease with the reform of the Best Loser System, I will be the first one to say we shouldn't go ahead with it."
Before this, Prime minister Navin Ramgoolam said, he agreed with Jocelyn Grégoire of the Fedération des créoles mauriciens (FCM) that the term General Population used in the constitution to describe anyone who did not fall into the Hindu, Muslim or Chinese category was wrong and that Creole would be a better category. This statement was followed by an even more contradicting one - that every Mauritian should call themselves Mauritians and that we should have a "national identity" and that was the only way there could ever be "national unity."
Those statements come ahead of the consultations on electoral reform that are due to start soon; Navin Ramgoolam said a few weeks ago in Parliament that he would start consultations after 1st May and would talk initially to the main political parties.
The Labour party's stand is known - Navin Ramgoolam as head of the Labour party deponed in front of the Sachs Commission in 2001 and said he was in favour of an electoral reform that would mix proportional representation to the First Past the Post System.
Nothing in his latest official statements indicate that the Prime minister has changed his mind regarding the reform; on the contrary, he lets on in his May Day speech that, contrarily to what MMM leader says, he had every intention of going ahead with the reforms.
By the above-mentioned statements however, Navin Ramgoolam hints at a possible backpedaling regarding the abolition of the Best Loser System (BLS).
This statement follows another one made by minister for Housing and Lands, Asraf Dullul at a political meeting a week or so before May Day rallies. Dullul said, in gist, that he was against the abolition of the BLS and that it was MMM leader Paul Bérenger who wanted to see the end of the BLS.
So which is which?
Ramgoolam is cleverer than Dullul in that he doesn't say this outright. What he says is that "the BLS has served us well", meaning that it was a good system (presumably not to alienate those people who feel "reassured" by the BLS) but hints that it is time for the country to forgo what it no longer needs. But there ends the hint because the PM complicates matters further when he says, "if people are not happy with abolishing the BLS, we won't press the matter."
There is no doubt that Ramgoolam thinks the country should do away with the BLS- he has said it enough times. But always with a word of caution for those who feel threatened by the abolition of this very psychological reassurance, by adding that "we must ensure that all the ethnic groups of our rainbow nation are adequately represented in Parliament."
Ram Seegobin, of Lalit, thinks this is backpedaling and blames this on the rising influence of ethnically oriented groups like Jocelyn Grégoire Federation des créoles mauriciens (FCM) and the Hizbullah who have taken it upon themselves to fight for "better representation." Ethnic representation.
Ramgoolam is believed to have an alternative solution to the BLS (through proportional representation) that he will attempt to explain to his political opponents in an attempt to gain their support on this tricky matter.
The confusion stems from the fact that the BLS is based on the representation of the "minority" communities in Parliament. Those communities are defined by the constitution, which states that there are four different "types" of Mauritians.
Will getting rid of this particular section necessarily mean we will be getting rid of the BLS? In principle, this seems to be the case because the BLS is dependent on the fact that prospective candidates for elections, when they fill in their electoral forms, disclose what their "community" is. The Supreme Court has held that this disclosure is compulsory. The argument doesn't hold water if the offensive section is abolished.
How does one "officially" pick out candidates based on their ethnicity that's not "officially" recognized? Unless there is an unofficial agreement between all political parties that the proportional representation will bring in candidates chosen on the basis of the party they represent and of their ethnic origin.
So how does one abolish the divisive section and keep the BLS?
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 L'Express. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
