Electoral system

The electoral system in Mauritius is a two-tiered electoral scheme consisting of firstly a First-Past-The-
Post, Three-Vote-For-Three system and secondly the BLS. The Mauritius electoral system however,
distinguishes itself with two unique features.

The first is the division of the country into twenty constituencies in which each voter has to vote for three
candidates, with the three candidates receiving the most votes being elected. The choice of which three
candidates is left open to the voter and no block party vote is legally imposed.

The second is what is known as the Best Loser System (BLS). The system has worked well in terms of its
own stability and the stability of the elected governments by providing conditions for the practice of
consociationalism. This provided an often fragile but sustainable democracy in an ethnically plural
society.

The electoral system of Mauritius has a great significance as it represents the choice of people in choosing
the government of their choice. For a multi ethnic country like Mauritius the ideal electoral system is
based on a fair representation of the population which guarantee majority rule and government stability.
Mauritius has experienced a number of electoral systems since 1810 before adopting the current system.
Among them were the one man rule and the first pass the post system.

The actual electoral system is based on Banwell recommendations and modified by Stonehouse. Banwell
recommended the followings:

1. 20 constituencies in Mauritius returning 3 members each and Rodrigues 2 members. At same time
Banwell divided the population into 4 sections: Hindu, Muslim , General Population and Chinese
for electoral law purposes. First Past The Post was used in theory but in practice it was three pass
the post.
2. To overcome the problem of under representation Banwell proposed 5 constant correction best
losers seats to be filled as soon as results of general election are official.
3. Candidates chosen as best losers should secure largest number of votes among the defeated
candidates belonging to the underrepresented community. Any party eligible to benefit the best
loser seat should secure in seat by direct election and at least 10% of general votes.
4. Banwell proposed a controversial point about any party receiving more than 25% total vote and
less than 25% seats in parliament. The party would be reallocated seats to bring its share to 25%.

The last proposal of Banwell was rejected by the MLP , then Stonehouse a friend of MLP was called as
negotiator. Stonehouse kept the delimitations of the constituencies and modified the followings:

 Stonehouse changed the 5 constant correctives by the 8 best loser seats.

 The variable corrective which was a controversy and the 10 % votes were rejected.
The first 4 best losers seats were to be allocated to parties belonging to under presented communities
irrespective to party affiliation .The community for the first 4 best losers is obtained by dividing the
population of each of the communities by number of seats obtained by that community in general election
plus one. The second 4 best losers were allocated on party and community basis.

The Mauritian electoral system is one of its kind in the southern African region. It uses a plural first-past-
the-post system. The mainland is divided into 20 constituencies with each one of those constituencies
represented by 3 Members. Thus 60 Members represent the mainland in parliament. Rodrigues Island is a
constituency in itself and is represented by 2 Members in parliament. This brings the total number of
directly elected Members to 62. The other 8 seats are occupied by best losers.

The electoral system, as explained above, means that each contesting party may field 3 candidates for each
of the 20 mainland constituencies and 2 candidates for the Rodrigues Constituency. The rationale behind
this electoral system is an attempt to ensure fair political representation by different parties in parliament.
It was realised that simple majority was not always the best way of determining the winning candidate, as
it was possible for candidates to be separated by a small percentage point, which in actual fact maybe one
vote.

Also, as a way of accommodating and guaranteeing the interests of the minority communities, the
Mauritian electoral system has come up with a unique system of achieving that objective and this is called
the ?Best Loser System?. For the purposes of allocating seats to the best losers, the Mauritian Constitution
recognizes 4 sections of the Mauritian society; Hindu, Muslim, General Population and Chinese. Hence
candidates are required to declare before the elections as to which community they belong to. Candidates
selected as best losers are those with the highest votes among the under-represented communities. The
Electoral Supervisory Commission, in accordance with laid down rules, determines who the best losers are.

Be that as it may, some sections of the Mauritian population are not happy with the Best Loser System.
They argue that the system is inimical to social integration as it accentuates ethnic, religious and class
differences. However, the general population seems happy with this system.

The National Assembly is Mauritius's unicameral parliament, which was called the Legislative Assembly
until 1992, when the country became a republic. The Parliament of Mauritius is modeled after the
Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, where members of the Parliament are voted in at
regular General Elections, on the basis of a first past the post system. The president is elected for a five-
year term by the parliament. The Assembly is made up of 70 members, of whom 62 members are elected
on a First-Past-The-Post or rather First-Three-Past-The-Post basis, from 20 constituencies on the Island of
Mauritius and 2 elected members from the Island of Rodrigues. After a general election, the Electoral
Supervisory Commission may nominate up to a maximum of 8 additional members, known as "best losers",
in accordance with section 5 of the First Schedule of the Constitution with a view to correct any imbalance
in community representation in Parliament and to ensure that ethnic and religious minorities are
equitably represented. This system of nominating members is commonly called the best loser system and
was put on the wheels during the 50s and 60s. As head of government, the Prime Minister is responsible
for implementing government policies and programmes. He/she is also responsible for recommending the
appointment of Cabinet Ministers to the President and supervising the Ministers.

Critics to the Electoral reform

There is no perfect electoral system and no electoral system which will meet approval of one and all. The
Mauritius electoral system is not any exceptional case either. It is indeed true that the system proposed by
Banwell with Stonehouse modification is not perfect. The system has a number of unfair elements towards
the population, candidates standing for elections and political parties.

Mauritius has a first three past the post system during elections. It is one that is won by the 3 candidates
who come with the more votes than any other(s) in a constituency.

To a greater extent than many other electoral methods, the first-past-the-post system encourages tactical
voting. Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win,
even if they would prefer another of the candidates to win, because a vote for any other candidate will
likely be "wasted" and have no impact on the final result.Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates
or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. This is perhaps the most
fundamental criticism of First Past The Post system, that a large majority of votes may play no part in
determining the outcome.

Our system also develops a bias towards the party in alliance which commands a majority and which is
the winner. An analysis of statistical data of various elections after 1982 shows clearly the drawback of
the system. There is no proper representation of the population within the actual system as there is no
correlation between the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats in the national assembly. Professor
Hansraj Mathur gave a clear cut example in his book Parliament in Mauritius (1991) whereby he pointed
out clearly how there is no correlation between % of votes and seats. The system is detrimental to the
losing party and especially to any pioneering part which wants to stop the bi-party or bi-polar mode of
elections.

The Mauritius electoral system handed over to the island by Britain on the accession to independence in
1968 has worked well so far with the First Past The Post application. It has worked well essentially in
safeguarding the interests of every ethnic group making up the Mauritian nation as the First Past The Post
is conveniently supported by the Best Loser System. Why do we have to tamper with it now?
BEST LOSER SYSTEM

The best loser system was introduced by the Banwell Commission in 1966. It was later amended by Sir
Stonehouse. The Best Loser System is a method used in Mauritius to make sure that the minorities ethnic
groups are well and equitably represented in the parliament.

The electoral system in Mauritius is a two-tiered electoral scheme consisting of firstly a First-Past-The-
Post, Three-Vote-For-Three system and secondly the BLS. The parliament of Mauritius (the National
Assembly) houses 70 elected parliamentarians, 62 of which are elected through the FPTP system.6 The 62
parliamentarians are returned from 20 three-member constituencies on the mainland of Mauritius (thus
adding to 60) and two are returned from the island of Rodrigues. The three candidates winning the
highest number of votes become the elected candidates for that constituency. The remaining eight
parliamentarians are nominated by the Electoral Supervisory Commission, an independent body
established under the Constitution, through the BLS and they are thus called ‘Best Losers’. This process
occurs after the 62 parliamentarians have been elected through the FPTP. The ‘Best Losers’ enjoy the same
rights and privileges as any other duly elected parliamentarian through the FPTP. There are two sets of
four ‘Best Losers’: the first four are selected according to their race and suffrage; the second four are
selected according to their race, suffrage and political party. Four races or communities are identified in
the Constitution for purposes of the BLS. These are Hindus, Muslims, the General Population (consisting
mainly of people of African descent) and Sino-Mauritians (people originating from China). The Mauritian
law requires that each candidate during an election declare the community he/she belongs.

Devianand Narrain and ors v The Electoral supervisory commission and ors 2005 SCJ 159

Mouvement alternative ek resistance (a political party) decided to enter candidates for election and chose
not to disclose their ethnic belonging deliberately. The case was entered to challenge the decision. Their
candidates were rejected by returning officers. Juge Balancy pronounced the judgement in their favour.
Electoral supervisory commission appealed, can candidates not give their community? Regulation 12 of
National Assembly Regulations. Decision of Balancy was overruled.

The Best Loser seats are allocated according to the communal breakdown of the 1972 census. The first 4 of
the 8 seats shall so far as is possible each be allocated to the most successful unreturned candidate, if any,
who is a member of a party and who belongs to the appropriate community, regardless of which party he
belongs to. When the first 4 seats have been allocated, the number of such seats that have been allocated
to persons who belong to parties, other than the most successful party, shall be ascertained and so far as is
possible that number of seats out of the second 4 seats shall one by one be allocated to the most successful
unreturned candidates (if any) belonging both to the most successful party and to the appropriate
community or where there is no unreturned candidate of the appropriate community, to the most
successful unreturned candidates belonging to the most successful party, irrespective of community.
Criticisms to BLS
Numerous criticisms can be leveled at the BLS from a human rights and democratization perspective.
Firstly, the BLS introduces elements of communalism in the Constitution which otherwise prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race.18 Secondly, candidates should disclose their race or community on the
nomination paper for standing as a candidate to the general elections although the race or community
will not be mentioned on the ballot form viewed by the voter. Non-disclosure of the community will lead
to invalidation of the nomination.19 Thirdly, while disclosure of the race or community might entitle a
particular candidate to a ‘Best Loser’ seat, there is no safeguard to ensure that the candidate is disclosing
the appropriate community.20 In other words, it seems that nothing can stop a candidate who is
apparently Muslim but who has registered as a candidate of the General Population from securing the
‘Best Loser’ seat which is due to that particular community. Fourthly, the population figures used for
purposes of the BLS date from the ethnic census carried out by the government of Mauritius in 1972
when the population of Mauritius would sum up to around 800, 000 inhabitants.21 Fifthly, results in
individual cases while using the BLS have turned out to be irrational. In cases of 60-0, that is where all the
20 constituencies return 3 candidates all of one political party or party alliance, there would be no
candidate eligible for the second set of ‘Best Loser’ seats.22 Sixthly, the BLS is not based on direct
participatory democracy, but rather on calculations which cannot be foreseen by the voter at the time of
election. Nomination of a candidate as a ‘Best Loser’ depends on the overall percentage of votes which that
candidate has won in his constituency against suffrage in other constituencies. Seventhly, it also impinges
on democracy to the extent that the ‘Best Losers’ will represent the interest of the members of the same
constituency where they have failed to get elected through the FPTP. There is always the danger that they
might thus be unwanted representatives. Eighthly, but importantly, only a candidate who joins a political
party is eligible for a ‘Best Loser’ seat.23 Therefore, an independent candidate who belongs to a minority
entitled to secure a ‘Best Loser’ seat cannot do so despite harvesting a suffrage entitling him to same. It was
highlighted in the case of Duval v Francois that the independent candidates who are more successful than
party candidates and who satisfy the communal criterion have no claim to the allocation of seats. Ninthly,
only four communities are isolated for purposes of the BLS whilst contemporary Mauritius might consist
of more minorities, or at least groups which consider themselves as separate minorities.
Advantages of the BLS
On the other side, the best loser system has been established since a long time and is accepted by if not all,
a majority of people. The most important and major benefit of the BLS is that it safeguards the interest of
minorities. Thus, a person from a community can best defend the interest of that community. The BLS can
be used as a corrective measure as in the case of 60-0, the BLS creates an opposition. Those who do not
want to declare their community must join the group of general population. While talking about the BLS,
one tends to think about ethnicity but the BLS talks only and only about community. It’s sometimes people
who tend to draw unnecessary conclusions.
Since the system is working well for such a long time, it would be unwise to change the system. However
the debate is still ongoing. Only the future will prove to be decisive and then we will contain a clear
answer. Should the system be amended? Well maybe proportional representation may be implemented in
our system but with modifications in order to fit the Mauritian context.
Constitutional right to stand as candidate for general elections

Qualifications for membership

Subject to section 34, a person shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the Assembly if, and shall
not be so qualified unless, he –
(a) is a Commonwealth citizen of not less than the age of 18 years;
(b) has resided in Mauritius for a period of, or periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than 2 years
before the date of his nomination for election;
(c) has resided in Mauritius for a period of not less than 6 months immediately before that date; and
(d) is able to speak and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read the English
language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in the proceedings of
the Assembly.

Disqualifications for membership

(1) No person shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the Assembly who –
(a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a
power or state outside the Commonwealth;
(b) is a public officer or a local government officer;
(c) is a party to, or a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a company which is a party to, any
contract with the Government for or on account of the public service, and has not, within 14 days after
his nomination as a candidate for election, published in the English language in the Gazette and in a
newspaper circulating in the constituency for which he is a candidate, a notice setting out the nature of
such contract and his interest, or the interest of any such firm or company, therein;
(d) has been adjudged or otherwise declared bankrupt under any law in force in any part of the
Commonwealth and has not been discharged or has obtained the benefit of a cession bonorum in
Mauritius;
(e) is a person adjudged to be of unsound mind or detained as a criminal lunatic under any law in force in
Mauritius;
(f) is under sentence of death imposed on him by a court in any part of the Commonwealth, or is serving a
sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) exceeding 12 months imposed on him by such a
court or substituted by competent authority for some other sentence imposed on him by such a court, or is
under such a sentence of imprisonment the execution of which has been suspended;
(g) is disqualified from election by any law in force in Mauritius by reason of his holding, or acting in, an
office the functions of which involve –
(i) any responsibility for, or in connection with, the conduct of any election; or
(ii) any responsibility for the compilation or revision of any electoral register; or
(h) is disqualified for membership of the Assembly by any law in force in Mauritius relating to offences
connected with elections.
(2) Where it is prescribed by Parliament that any office in the public service or the service of a local
authority is not to be regarded as such an office for the purposes of this section, a person shall not be
regarded for the purposes of this section as a public officer or a local government officer, as the case may
be, by reason only that he holds, or is acting in, that office.
(3) For the purpose of this section –
(a) 2 or more terms of imprisonment that are required to be served consecutively shall be regarded as a
single term of imprisonment for the aggregate period of those terms; and
(b) imprisonment in default of payment of a fine shall be disregarded.