WHY THE NEED FOR AN ELECTORAL REFORM? Our political system is based on Parliamentary Democracy, meaning that voters elect their representatives to represent them in the National Assembly (NA). The National Assembly is the supreme legislative body and as such it should be fairly representative, meaning correctly and rationally constituted. There are constituencies in Mauritius with less than 30,000 voters and yet are enabled to elect three members to the NA while others with even 60,000 are getting only three representatives. This is not an isolated case. 11 constituencies out of 20 are oversized and abnormally represented. This present situation is caused and tolerated by the inability of the Electoral Boundaries Commission or/ and the NA to take the correct stand. This is an anomaly which needs urgent redress otherwise our NA will continue to be misrepresented. This situation has been going for too long: 47 years. A solution could have been applied in the form of “Multiple Member’ constituencies; meaning that the number of representatives should be directly proportional to the number of voters in the respective constituency. In this case a constituency with 60,000 voters could get 6 representatives instead of three, if the ration was 1:10,000 or less voters. Yet in the White Paper this issue is simply dismissed from comments by a categorical refusal but with the acceptance of “unequal constituencies”; maintaining thus the anomalous situation in its present form and tenor. The urgency to bring in an electoral reform was caused by the verdict rendered at the level of the United Nations to save candidates standing for elections from declaring their ethnicity. This issue is directly linked with the ‘Best loser system’. In his book, “Political History and Electoral Reforms in Mauritius”, my colleague, Mr. Vijay Chandreeka Ahku, has provided alternative solutions to this problem. Now with the refusal to correct the anomalous situation and maintaining the status quo, the need to have a profound electoral reform has been simply set aside. However, there is no guarantee that such proposals as entertained by the party leaders may not come up again for approval after the general elections. There is reason to be cautious and not to sit and wait but to move and act diligently to stop the legalization of this Oligarchy. This New Economic and Social Order may be the challenging alternative to their move.
Posted on: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 04:06:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015