This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]

On: 14 May 2015, At: 22:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Contemporary African

Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjca20

Intersectionality and women's political

citizenship: the case of Mauritius
ab
Ramola Ramtohul
a
Department of Social Studies, University of Mauritius, Moka,
Mauritius
b
Centre of African Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
UK
Published online: 06 May 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Ramola Ramtohul (2015) Intersectionality and women's political
citizenship: the case of Mauritius, Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 33:1, 27-47, DOI:
10.1080/02589001.2015.1024008

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2015.1024008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 2015
Vol. 33, No. 1, 27–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2015.1024008

Intersectionality and women’s political citizenship: the case of

Mauritius
Ramola Ramtohula,b*
a
Department of Social Studies, University of Mauritius, Moka, Mauritius; bCentre of African
Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
(Received 16 July 2013; final version received 12 August 2014)

This paper analyses the impact of intersectionality and multiple identities on women’s
political citizenship in Mauritius. Mauritius is commonly known as a ‘rainbow nation’
with its multiethnic population marked by ethnic or communal divisions. Commun-
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

alism dominates the Mauritian political system and institutions, intensifying during
elections when the different communal groups compete for representation in
parliament. The paper argues that the strong emphasis attributed to ethnic and
communal representation by the Mauritian political system and structures marginalises
women’s political citizenship. Political candidates are often sponsored by religious and
sociocultural organisations that are male dominated whereas the women’s lobby is
weak in comparison to the communal lobby. The paper thus contends that the
communal dimension in Mauritian politics carries a significant gendered dimension.
Communalism has made the political system very resistant to change, despite the fact
that it marginalises women.
Keywords: Mauritius; intersectionality; communalism; electoral system; political
party

This paper analyses how intersectionality and multiple identities in the Mauritian plural
society impact upon women’s political citizenship. Mauritius, like most countries of the
world, has historically denied women the full and effective title of citizen. This state of
affairs is still visible in the political arena where women’s presence remains marginal.
Feminist authors have argued that the exclusion of women from citizenship was an
intrinsic feature of their seclusion and confinement to the private familial sphere, which
problematised their inclusion into the public sphere (Pateman 1988; Lister 2003). The
public sphere was constructed as masculine, rational, responsible and respectable, and
women became the ‘property’ that allowed married men, including the working classes,
the right to be active citizens in this sphere (Werbner and Yuval-Davis 1999). T.H.
Marshall (1950) defined citizenship as full membership in the community, focusing on
the relationship of class to social integration and omitting gender. Marshall’s theory is
nonetheless relevant for a gendered analysis of citizenship because it covers the focal
areas of polity, economy and society. Marshall (1950, 10) posited that citizenship was
comprised of three elements: civil, political and social.1 Political citizenship, which is the
focus of this paper, involves the right to participate in the exercise of political power,

*Emails: r.ramtohul@uom.ac.mu; ramola.ramtohul@gmail.com

© 2015 The Institute of Social and Economic Research
 28 R. Ramtohul

either as a contester standing for elections, or as a voter, and the main institutions
concerned are parliament and councils of local government.
Multicultural citizenship ‘combines the principle of universality of rights with the
demand for differential treatment for groups which have differing values, interests and
needs’ (Castles 1994, 10). Key elements include linguistic and cultural rights or rights of
recognition (Lister 2003). However, the multicultural model of citizenship runs the risk of
essentialising and freezing cultural differences and treating cultural groups as homogen-
eous and closed, ignoring other pertinent differences such as gender, sexuality, class and
age (Lister 2003). Drawing from the Mauritian model and through a gendered analysis of
the political institutions in Mauritius, the paper argues that the practice of multicultural
citizenship in Mauritius has led to a strong focus on communal and ethnic identities,
which has marginalised gender at the level of political presence and representation.
Primary data was gathered from the press archives as well as from 15 semi-structured
interviews carried out with women politicians and activists in 2007. Nine interviewees
were politicians and members of parliament whereas six were activists and leaders of
women’s organisations.2
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Following from the introductory section, the next section of the paper highlights some
of the theoretical debates on intersectionality and women’s political citizenship. The
paper then focuses on Mauritius, examining how communal identities exert a strong
influence on political citizenship through the political system of the country. The
following sections examine the impact of communalism on women’s political citizenship,
through a gendered analysis of the main political institutions in the country, namely
political parties and the electoral system before concluding.

Intersectionality and women’s political citizenship

Women do not comprise a uniform group and diversity, division and difference
problematise women’s citizenship as a group. The theory of intersectionality and identity
has shown that identities are complex, comprising multiple intersections of class, gender,
race, nationality and sexuality, causing individuals to react differently at different times
(Crenshaw 1991; Collins 2000). Differences of education, job opportunities and cultural
possibilities also get filtered through the lenses of class and ethnicity which structure the
individual experiences of women (Spelman 1988). Crenshaw (1991, 1245) identifies
three dimensions of intersectionality: structural, political and representational. Structural
intersectionality pertains to the ways in which the location and membership of women of
different social groups structure their actual experiences in society. Political intersection-
ality focuses on the ways that women who occupy multiple social identities find
themselves caught between the sometimes conflicting agendas of the different political
constituencies to which they belong. Political intersectionality therefore includes the
challenge of working politically with the diversity within an identity group (Cole 2008).
Representational intersectionality refers to the cultural construction of women of different
identity groups and how the representation of these women in popular culture can also
marginalise their particular location and therefore become another source of intersectional
disempowerment (Crenshaw 1991).
In multicultural societies, the three dimensions of intersectionality become particu-
larly significant. Women are often required to carry the ‘burden of representation’, as they
are constructed as the symbolic bearers of the collective’s identity and honour, both
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 29

personally and collectively (Yuval-Davis 1998, 29). According to Yuval-Davis and

Anthias (1989), women participate in ethnic and national processes in a number of ways:
as biological reproducers of the ethnic community, as reproducers of the boundaries of
ethnic or national groups, as key actors in the transmission of the community’s values, as
markers of ethnic or national distinctiveness, and as active participants in national
struggles. Here, Bauer’s (1940) notion of ‘common destiny’ becomes relevant as
individuals construct themselves as members of national collectivities not only because
they and their ancestors have a shared past, but also because they believe that their futures
are interdependent (Yuval-Davis 1998). This explains the skewed sense of commitment of
people into collectivities and nations in settler societies or in post-colonial states which do
not possess a shared myth of common origin (Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis 1995). ‘Common
destiny’ and commitment to collectivities carry implications for women’s political actions
in movements, especially if feminist-oriented political activism towards women’s rights
and citizenship conflicts with the values, ideologies and goals of their ethnic and religious
communities.
Sarvasy and Siim (1994) put forward a feminist pluralistic notion of citizenship which
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

incorporates the differences that exist between women and the plurality of the sites of
women’s participation as citizens. They argue that citizenship practices should be able to
build bridges across the differences among women especially as women assume different
and sometimes diverging roles and identities and try to combine them in their practice of
citizenship. In this context, Lister (2003, 82) talks about a ‘politics of solidarity in
difference’ and a commitment to dialogue. This position is also reiterated by Dean (1996,
1997) in terms of a statement of feminist solidarity of difference which will attempt to
move beyond identity politics and short-term ‘tactical solidarities’, towards a more
inclusive ‘reflective solidarity’ which is more open to difference and dialogue (Dean
1996, 17). In a similar vein, Mohanty (in Mohanty, Russo, and Torres 1991, 7) introduces
the notion of a ‘common context of struggle’ which brings together disparate women’s
groups to form an alliance.
For political citizenship to promote women’s equality as well as their difference,
women need to engage with the formal political system (Lister 2003). This will require
them to bridge differences in a political struggle under their identity as women. Indeed,
women’s persistent exclusion from political office stands as a serious flaw in any
democracy and also marginalises women as political citizens. The underrepresentation of
women has also become widely associated with problems of ‘democratic deficit’ and
donor agencies focus attention on it as part of strategies to strengthen democratic
accountability and good governance (Sawer, Tremblay, and Trimble 2006). Women’s
power remains limited when they are outside the circles of key policy decision-making
and implementation despite successful mobilisation at grassroots level (Coote and
Pattullo 1990).

Communalism and political citizenship in Mauritius

Mauritius is a small island of 1860 km², located in the South-West Indian Ocean with a
population of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants. The Island of Mauritius experienced
successive waves of colonisers including the Portuguese, Dutch, French and finally, the
British. Mauritius does not have an indigenous population and now has a plural society.
The descendants of the French settlers, known as Franco-Mauritians, own and control a
 30 R. Ramtohul

significant share of the resources on the island, relative to the size of the community. The
‘gens de couleur’, also known as the free people of colour, are an ethnic category that
emerged during French colonial rule (Eriksen 1998). This was largely a mixed race
group, often the children of Franco-Mauritian plantation owners and slave women.
Although they were of an inferior standing vis-à-vis the Franco-Mauritians, the ‘gens de
couleur’ had access to a number of privileges that the other population groups were
historically denied, including education and the right to acquire property. The descendants
of the former slaves of African and mixed descent came to be known as Creoles. Laville
(2000, 279) highlights the divisions in the Creole population along class and colour lines,
with the informal identification of the majority of Creoles as ‘black’ people. The Franco-
Mauritians, ‘gens de couleur’ and Creoles are mainly Catholic. Chinese immigrants
settled on the island in the 1830s as merchants and traders. Some are Buddhist and others
Catholic. Because of their small numbers, the Chinese, also known as Sino-Mauritians,
were not able to become a strong political force (Simmons 1982, 6). Following the
abolition of slavery in 1835, Indian immigrants were brought to Mauritius to work as
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

indentured labourers in the sugar cane plantations. The Indians brought a radical and
permanent change in the ethnic composition of the population of the island, making up
two-thirds of the population of the island by 1871.3 The Indo-Mauritians are divided
along religious lines between Hindus and Muslims, with Hindus being further divided
along class, linguistic and caste lines.4
The Mauritian nation is often depicted as a rainbow nation, which is fragile and
carries a semblance of unity in diversity. The population is estimated to be composed of
six ‘ethnic communities’: Hindus (40%), Creoles of African or mixed African descent
(28%), Muslims (17%), Tamils (7%), Sino-Mauritians (3%) and Franco-Mauritians
(about 2%).5 Thus, Mauritius can be described as a ‘typical plural society’ which is not
only composed of many cultures, but also lacks or has historically lacked any strong
impulse towards social and cultural integration (Fenton 1999, 38). In these societies, the
removal of an external constraining force, such as colonial rule, leaves behind a society
with no integrative mechanisms.6 In fact, the accession of Mauritius to independence in
1968 was the result of three decades of political negotiations mainly between political
parties representing local interests of the different ethnic groups and British colonial
authorities. There was no national liberation struggle as such and the main area of
contention was the protection of the interests of minority communities and the need for
some form of guarantee that each community would be adequately represented in
parliament in an independent Mauritius. There was no consensus as 44% of the Mauritian
population actually opposed independence. This opposition stemmed from minority
ethnic groups7 who feared for their future in an independent Mauritius with a numerically
superior Hindu segment of the population and likelihood of Hindu hegemony. The
forging of a spirit of nationalism and unity was consequently fractured, causing manifold
effects on the social and political affairs of the country. This remains visible in the present
day politics of the country where class, religion and ethnic background continue to exert a
profound influence. On this issue, Benedict (1965, 43) states that it is in the Mauritian
political context that ethnic considerations become most significant as politicians appeal
for support on ethnic or religious grounds and groups of supporters form, bound together
by cultural criterion such as common ethnic origin, language or religion. Politics thus
currently exacerbates existing divisions between the different communities of Mauritius.
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 31

The practice of multiculturalism in Mauritius advocates the coexistence of ethnic,

religious and cultural groups and mutual tolerance by maintaining a balance in the
distribution of power between the different groups. Eisenlohr (2011, 263) observes that
the management of religious pluralism is a focal public concern in Mauritius because of
the fear that political competition and power struggles could slide into destructive
religious communalism between members of different ethno-religious communities. The
distribution of political power between different religious and ethnic groups has been
ensured by constitutional provision for reserved parliamentary seats for minority
communities. The main political parties also nominate candidates for election in different
constituencies according to their ethnic and religious background. While multiculturalism
is a fundamental aspect of Mauritian politics and society, it is communalism that is most
often advocated during election time.8 ‘Communalism’ is the Mauritian equivalent of
‘ethnic politics’ and has been described as the ‘scourge of contemporary Mauritius’
(Claveyrolas 2012, 68). It highlights the preponderance of ethnic and religious
communities in the public sphere and society (Eisenlohr 2006, 274). Communalism
also denotes the affiliation and loyalty of Mauritians first to their alleged community and
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

then to the nation. Communal identities become particularly salient during elections,
although they are employed in other contexts including marriage and employment.
Communalism, however, carries a gendered dimension because it promotes the
patriarchal value system and all that is rightly or wrongly associated with religion.
Communalism is in fact essentially political in nature and is aimed at the ‘other’
community although in practice, it tends to ‘homogenise’ the respective communities,
even if this ‘homogenisation’ is utterly superficial and temporary in Mauritius and mainly
pertinent during elections. Communal tendencies that defend and safeguard religious
practices along with religious malpractices and entitlements, and rights of communities
against any threats from their ‘rival’ communities, also tend to make the communities
rather ‘closed’ to change in the status quo. This state of affairs affects women’s issues
more significantly as women have often been exploited and oppressed by the decrees and
practices in most religions. Research has shown that when religion and politics
intertwine, women and their rights to equality, autonomy and bodily autonomy are
threatened (Razavi and Jenichen 2010). Multiethnic and plural societies are characterised
by discord and divisions, which in turn threaten women’s rights and also affect women’s
political mobilisation and activism. Women in a multicultural set-up therefore risk being
more markedly oppressed. By providing cultural autonomy, the policy of multiculturalism
allows the ethnic/cultural groups to perpetuate their culture and value system which, by
and large, treat women as subordinate to men. Furthermore, the particular ethnic values,
norms and group attributes separate women from the different communities, thus
negatively affecting their mobility. Mauritian society embodies a strong patriarchal
culture which endorses ‘respective femininity’ among women, thereby discouraging their
involvement in the public arena of politics and social movements. Yet stronger social and
feminist movements become important to counter the influence of fundamentalism and
essentialism among religious groups that discriminate against women.
Communalism features very strongly in Mauritian politics and impacts on political
citizenship in the country. During elections, communal identity largely takes precedence
over national identity. Of the four Prime Ministers Mauritius has had since independence,
all have been Hindus except Paul Bérenger who is a Franco-Mauritian. His accession to
the position of Prime Minister was a major clause of an agreement of the Mouvement
 32 R. Ramtohul

Militant Mauricien-Mouvement Socialist Mauricien (MMM-MSM) party coalition at the

2000 general election.9 Due to their numerical superiority, Hindus have always been the
decisive group in determining which political party ruled at any time since independence
(Mukonoweshuro 1991, 200). At a deeper level, there is a connection between civil
society and political parties as sociocultural and religious organisations exert significant
influence on the nomination of electoral candidates. Official figures classify non-
governmental organisations (NGOs)10 in two ways, by ‘activity or function’ and by
‘ethnic or religious provenance’. Of these registered NGOs, 20% are devoted to religion,
thus providing a notable assessment of the priorities of the Mauritian people and also
reflecting the continuing differentiation within Mauritian society (Miles 1999, 100).
These associations have had strong links with the dominant and ruling political parties in
Mauritius since the beginning of organised politics in the 1950s.11 At that time, many
Hindu dominated sociocultural and religious organisations kept sound connections with
the Mauritius Labour Party (MLP). Moreover, with the passing of political power to the
Hindus, caste took on a new dimension in terms of political interest groups, which are the
socio-religious organisations (Hollup 1994, 314). The latter lobby government for the
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

allocation of benefits to members of their community and compete for the allocation of
state resources and patronage. Hollup (311) refers to them as ‘corporate groups’.12
The government’s decision to subsidise sociocultural and religious organisations in
1962 is one of the key factors that led to a more significant involvement of these religious
bodies in the political affairs of the country.13 The ‘informal’ relationship between
political parties and sociocultural associations becomes clearly visible as a number of
leaders of these organisations are nominated as board members of parastatal bodies and
state companies.14 The link between politicians and sociocultural organisations assumes
greater intensity at the approach of general elections when some of these organisations
choose to officially endorse a given political party. At times, they lobby for sponsor
candidates from their linguistic or ethnic group so that the latter obtain electoral tickets
from the main political parties. In its report on the 2005 general election in Mauritius, the
Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) election update highlighted the significant
influence of these organisations during elections. It noted that in terms of advocacy and
lobbying activities, sociocultural or ethnic-based organisations were the most active
during the 2005 general elections (EISA 2005a). Sociocultural and religious organisations
are, however, patriarchal bodies with primarily male members and are governed by male
religious leaders. In an interview to the newspaper Weekend (8 July, 2012), Nita
Deerpalsing, a female member of the MLP and a Member of Parliament, emphasised the
following:

I would like to stress one fact. Socio-cultural associations are always headed by men, always
the same men. None of them is led by women, who nonetheless make up more than 50% of
the Mauritian population. So, who do the spokespersons of these sociocultural associations
represent, apart from themselves and their own interests?15

Although some organisations have involved women in welfare-oriented activities16 in the

past, they do not promote women’s participation in leadership roles and in party and
electoral politics through their channels. There is at present, no academic study on the
sociocultural and religious organisations of Mauritius.
The political institutions of the country have so far worked towards ensuring
representation of the different ethnic groups. This has fostered a feeling of justice and
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 33

equity in terms of representation of diverse interests, enabling the country to maintain

peace and political stability despite the prevalence of ethnic fragmentation in Mauritian
society. Yet it has also hindered any reform of the political institutions to enable a more
balanced gendered representation in parliament. Thus, in terms of citizenship, especially
political citizenship, communal identity has been stronger than the Mauritian identity;
whereas the gender dimension of political citizenship has been largely neglected. The
paper argues that the practice of communalism in Mauritian politics and stress over
communal representation has marginalised women’s political citizenship, more specific-
ally at the level of political presence as women are expected to represent the communities
to which they belong rather than themselves as ‘women’, and therefore, to be represented
by male political leaders or members of their communities. Political intersectionality is
particularly pertinent here as Mauritian women find themselves caught between the
different agendas of the identity group to which they belong.

Intersectional Identities and Mauritian women’s political citizenship

Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

The topic of women and politics in Mauritius is a recent area of study and comprehensive
research on the history of women’s political participation remains to be undertaken.17
Mauritian women gained political citizenship with the proclamation of female suffrage
under British colonial rule in 1947. The debates of the constitutional committees that led
to the adoption of a new constitution in 1947 and enfranchised women indicate that
intersectional identities and fear over representation on ethnic and communal basis were
the main areas of concern and contention.18 Political and representational intersectionality
were key factors that led to contestations over women’s political citizenship as women’s
suffrage became intertwined with the broader discussions of overall electoral and
constitutional reform that called for a new constitution that would enable a better
representation of the different groups. With respect to female suffrage, the main concern
was how women’s vote could strengthen the presence of men from their respective
communities in parliament.
Political and economic power was, until 1948, held by the Franco-Mauritian and to a
lesser extent, ‘gens de couleur’ elite groups, and only educated and propertied men could
vote and stand for election. These elites proposed the introduction of female suffrage
based on property and educational qualifications as a strategy to widen the franchise in
the new constitution and to ensure greater support for their position in parliament. The
Indo-Mauritians (Hindus and Muslims) and Creoles, representing the working class,
lobbied for male adult suffrage and the removal of property and educational requirements
for the franchise.19 They strongly opposed female suffrage because, in their view, it was a
strategy geared towards maintaining political power in the hands of the elite. At that time,
most Franco-Mauritian and ‘gens de couleur’ women were privileged with access to
education and higher income, qualifying to be voters. The majority of Indo-Mauritian and
Creole women were illiterate, financially marginalised and would not have met the
criteria to qualify as a voter.
The new women voters were expected to cast their votes according to communal and
ethnic lines, which would favour the Franco-Mauritian and ‘gens de couleur’ male
political leaders, which would not leave the Indo-Mauritians and Creoles any better off.
There was no assumption of women being able to act as independent political agents.
There is also no evidence of the existence of a women’s movement or women’s lobby for
 34 R. Ramtohul

the right to vote at that time, indicating that women were most probably segregated in the
different communities and were constrained by their legal status as minors (Ramtohul
2009b). Despite the strong opposition to female suffrage, Mauritian women obtained the
right to vote in 1947 based on literacy qualifications. The 1948 elections had its first
woman candidate, Mrs Marie-Louise Emilienne Rochecouste, a ‘gens de couleur’ woman
who became the first Mauritian female legislator. This indicates that there were women
who were keen to be actively involved in politics, but were not able to do so because they
were not political citizens. Moreover, the reluctance of male patriarchs to allow their
wives and daughters to work prevented many women from joining active politics.20 The
patriarchal culture, conservatism and dominant notions of respectable femininity
predominant in the island restricted the activities in the public sphere to men. The
history of women’s political citizenship in Mauritius thus highlights the complexity of
intersectional identities, especially the implications of political and representational
intersectionality for women’s suffrage and citizenship. It indicates that ethnic and
communal identities are often privileged over gendered identity and women’s rights.
Intersectional identities render it difficult for women to mobilise for political rights and
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

citizenship.

Women’s weak political presence

Since obtaining political citizenship, Mauritian women’s political presence has remained
consistently weak. Indeed, despite the existence of very little de jure discrimination
operating against women, economic, social and cultural barriers continue to hinder
women from realising their full potential and citizenship (Patten 2001). In this context,
Chiroro (2005, 2) notes that the only democratic deficit of Mauritius lies in its failure to
implement mechanisms that enhance women’s increased participation in politics.
Statistics from all elections held since 1967 reveal a high participation of eligible voters,
which confirms that Mauritian women have been actively practicing their political
citizenship as voters and have a keen interest in the political life of the country (Table 1).
The disparity between the number of female voters and female representatives
highlights the salience of women as an electoral category as women make up 52% of

Table 1. Voter turnout at national elections.

Election year Registered voters Turnout (%)

1967 307,683 88.9

1976 460,100 88
1982 540,000 87.3
1983 552,800 81.8
1987 639,488 85.5
1991 628,000 84.5
1995 712,513 79.7
2000 779,431 80.87
2005 817,305 81.52
2010 879,897 77.0
2014 908,190 74.26

Source: Electoral Institute for the Sustainability of Electoral Democracy in Africa

(EISA) – http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/mauregistration2.htm and Electoral Com-
missioner’s Office – http://electoral.govmu.org/English/Statistics%20on%20Reg-
isters/Documents/Gender%20statistics%202014.pdf
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 35

Table 2. Elected members by type of election and gender 1983–2014.

Type of election Year Male Female Both sexes Female (%)

National Legislative Assembly 1983 66 4 70 5.7

(These figures include the Best Loser 1987 66 4 70 5.7
seats which are over and above the 1991 60 2 66 3
62 elected seats) 1995 60 6 66 9.1
2000 66 4 70 5.7
2005 58 12 70 17.1
2010 50 13 69 18.8
2014 61 8 69 11.6
Municipal council 1985 119 7 126 5.6
1988 118 8 126 6.3
1991 119 7 126 5.6
1995 115 11 126 8.7
2001 109 17 126 13.5
2005 110 16 126 12.6
2012 57 32 89 35.5
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Village council 1986 195 15 810 1.8

1989 1158 18 1176 1.5
1992 1378 14 1392 1
1997 1435 41 1476 2.7
2005 1390 86 1476 5.8
2012 873 297 1170 25.4

Sources: Electoral Commissioner’s Office:

http://electoral.govmu.org/English/electionresult/nasselec/Pages/default.aspx

voters and therefore have the power to influence electoral results should they decide to do
so. The current situation indicates that ethnic and communal identities have so far been
privileged, even by women.
The marginal number of women in the Mauritian political scene reflects the surface of
a deep-rooted pattern of exclusion of women from public life (Table 2). Although some
advances have been made, the pattern of male advantage in the Mauritian political elite
still prevails. At the level of general elections to the National Assembly, there has been a
slight rise in the number of women elected to parliament since 2005. This was due to the
impact of the campaign led by a few women’s organisations on the eve of the 2005
elections, lobbying for a 30% representation of women in parliament.21 This momentum,
however, was not sustained for subsequent elections, mainly because of the lack of a
national women’s lobby for this cause and consequently, political parties did not
make any special effort to nominate more women. In January 2012 Mauritius adopted the
‘New Local Government Act 2011’, which provides for a mandatory gender neutral quota
at the level of local government with a minimum of 33% or one-third representation of
either sex in municipalities and village councils. The adoption of this quota led to a
significant increase in the presence of women in local government in 2012. Such
a measure has not yet been adopted at national level, as talks and consultations on electoral
reform are still ongoing. Political leaders in Mauritius are very cautious on the issue of
spearheading reforms of the political institutions, especially the electoral system or the
Constitution with regard to political representation. This has to do with the strong communal
identities still prevalent in the country and the lobby for political representation on a
communal basis.
 36 R. Ramtohul

Communalism and the marginalisation of gender in Mauritian political institutions

The high focus attributed to communal representation led a careful consideration of
ethnic, religious and linguistic diversities in the crafting of political institutions in
Mauritius. As such, the constitution guarantees representation of minority communities in
parliament through the Best Loser system and political parties take utmost care to
incorporate members from the different ethnic groups in order to increase their appeal.
However, the gender dimension has been largely neglected in the construction of the
political institutions of the island, resulting in a persistent marginal feminine presence in
parliament. This section discusses the main political institutions of the country, namely
the party system and the electoral system, showing that the primary consideration to
religious, ethnic and communal identities marginalises women’s political citizenship.

The electoral system

Electoral systems exert significant influence on women’s presence in parliament. The use
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

of proportional representation (PR), multi-member constituencies and party lists have

been found to be more conducive to higher levels of female representation than simple
majoritarian electoral systems (Squires and Wickham-Jones 2001). In Mauritius, the
nature of the electoral system in operation emanates from a combination of colonial
legacy and a definite concern for ethnic representation. The 1997 World Development
Report, when considering Mauritius, stated that:

The designers of the electoral system, anxious to avoid creating institutions that might
exacerbate the country’s ethnic divisions, structured the system to force the main parties to
seek support from all communities. (World Bank 1997, 113)

The structure in place is the block vote system, which is the application of the first-past-the-
post system in multi-member rather than single-member electoral districts.22 The highest
polling candidates fill positions regardless of the percentage of the vote they actually
achieve. In order to have a higher chance of winning, party leaders tend to appoint
candidates belonging to specific ethnic groups to stand for election in specific constituen-
cies, depending on the ethnic composition of the population in the different constituencies.23
Candidates compete for the 60 seats and each elector can vote for three candidates. Although
votes can be divided among any of the competing candidates, experience has shown that,
except in the cases of charismatic politicians carrying high appeal, Mauritians tend to vote
along party lines or party coalitions, rather than for candidates. The three candidates
obtaining the highest number of votes in each constituency are eventually elected.
It is primarily through the Best Loser System that the Constitution of Mauritius
ensures representation of all ethnic groups.24 The Best Loser System, a legacy of British
colonial rule, is unique to Mauritius.25 Its main purpose is to correct any imbalance in the
representation of the various communities which may result from the direct election.
Besides the 60 elected seats, the Best Loser System provides for eight additional seats to
be allocated to ‘best losers’ or defeated candidates in order to ensure representation from
all the country’s ethnic groups. These nominees are selected by the Electoral Supervisory
Commission and allocated seats on the basis of their ethno-religious affiliation. The Best
Loser quota system has undeniably contributed to the maintenance of democracy in
Mauritius by reassuring minorities of representation in parliament. Mathur (1997), for
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 37

instance, argues that a PR system would have polarised divisions along communal, caste
and linguistic lines, hence further complicating the process of nation building.
Nevertheless, the system has been criticised for its role in aggravating existing divisions
in Mauritian society, thus hindering the development of national unity in the country.26
Critics also point out that the Best Loser System legitimises the use of communal labels
to predict the behaviour of individuals and is thus a propagator of stereotypes (Nave
1998). However, the Best Loser System is not a gender sensitive system as it does not
cater for a balanced representation of women in parliament. In fact, no consideration was
given to women’s representation based on their gendered identity. The Mauritian electoral
system has yet to make provisions to ensure an adequate representation of women in
parliament. Although the main political parties agree that the Best Loser System is
obsolete, none has ventured officially to propose its elimination for fear that such a stand
be perceived as being against minority representations (EISA 2005a).
The issue of electoral reform in Mauritius occupied a prime position on the agenda of
the various governments since 2000. Although the main aim of government was to
correct the unfair nature of the current electoral system, which causes significant
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

disproportional representation between the percentage of votes and the number of seats in
parliament, women’s under representation was highlighted as ‘a grave democratic deficit’
(Sachs, Tandon, and Ahnee 2002, 26). Constitutional and/or electoral reforms in terms of
a mixed first-past-the-post/PR system was proposed to enable a more rapid change of
situation for Mauritius to reach the agreed Southern African Development Community
(SADC) target of 30% representation of women in politics. Meetings and discussions on
this issue have so far only involved leaders of political parties and have been an ‘all male’
debate. This has major implications for the meaning of citizenship for women,
questioning the extent to which they are equal citizens given that they are excluded
from these major political debates.
Furthermore, partisan politics and the stress over ethnic representation complicate the
issue of electoral reform leading to hesitation on the part of political leaders to take action
for fear of losing electoral popularity. There is also no consensus on the issue of
reforming the Best Loser System as some sectarian groups27 campaigning against the
abolition of the Best Loser System have attracted wide audiences. A MLP Minister of
Muslim faith openly spoke against the abolition of the Best Loser System. A Christian
association called L’Union Chrétienne has been lobbying for a redefinition of electoral
constituencies to provide for a higher number of Christians to be elected as well as
communal representation in parliament.28 Concerns about ethno-religious representation
are once again prioritised over women’s representation.
The delay in forging a consensus over electoral reform obstructs any action which
could improve women’s political presence in parliament. According to Karam (1998), it
is simpler to change the electoral system of a country via institutional reform than to alter
the culture’s view towards women. Electoral reform is a major opportunity for Mauritian
women to claim their space in parliament as it opens the issue to debate, criticism and
change. However, throughout the long debate and wide-ranging consultations on the issue
that have been ongoing since 2002, there has been a marked absence of a strong
‘women’s position’ on the issue. In her research on governance, gender and politics in
Mauritius, Bunwaree (2010, 107) draws attention to the silence of women’s groups/
associations with regard to challenging the monopoly of political space held by men.
Although some women’s organisations, namely MediaWatch Organisation and Women in
 38 R. Ramtohul

Networking (WIN) have been lobbying for a greater presence of women in parliament,
they do not command membership of or represent the bulk of the female population of
the country. The lack of solidarity between women has so far hindered the formation of a
strong women’s lobby on the issue of electoral reform. One female politician stated that
the lack of collaboration between the numerous women’s organisations on the issue of
women’s representation in politics means that ‘there is no consensus in the fight’.29
Female politicians also complained that it is only on the eve of elections that some
women’s organisations lobby for a greater number of women in parliament, and as soon
as elections are over, they become silent and the whole issue is forgotten.30
Communal identities command greater strength than gender identities in Mauritius,
which explains women’s marginalisation from the debates and consultations on electoral
reform. Political and representational intersectionality are major issues that have hindered
the process of electoral reform due to the sensitivities attached to communal representa-
tion. In this context, Bunwaree (2010, 141) stated:
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Expunging the Mauritius electoral system of ethnic, communal and racist consideration is no
easy task but expunging it of its gender biases may be even more difficult in a society as
patriarchal as Mauritius.

The Mauritian situation therefore indicates that change can only happen with regard to
women’s political citizenship when women decided to engage with the formal political
system more forcefully under their gendered identity, transcending the other intersectional
identities. There is here a strong need for women to practice what Lister (2003, 82) terms
a ‘politics of solidarity in difference’ for space to be made for women in the Mauritian
parliament.

The party system

Political parties are considered to be the gatekeepers to women’s participation in politics
because it is largely as candidates from particular parties that women contest elections for
political office (Matland 2005). Bowman (1991) posits that it is to the credit of the
Mauritian political system in general and to its principal leaders since independence, that
the country has maintained political stability despite significant ethnic divisions, whereas
Brautigam (1997) attributes it to necessity. The 1997 World Development Report notes
that since independence, all Mauritian governments have had to form multiethnic
coalitions in order to assume and maintain power (World Bank 1997, 113). The Mauritian
multiparty system is characterised by a kaleidoscope of parties, often constituted for little
more than electoral purposes (Bowman 1991; Srebrnik 2002). During elections, parties
often form electoral alliances, allocating constituencies among themselves. However, the
formation of coalitions and electoral alliances between parties carries a gendered
dimension as women are marginalised in the process. This practice limits the number
of seats available to individual parties in the coalition, thereby increasing the competition
for the few seats available and often leading to the marginalisation of women. According
to Sheila Bappoo, a senior woman politician, women are automatically sacrificed for men
when electoral tickets are being allocated and strong male lobbies insist upon this
sacrifice.31 A senior female politician explained this issue:
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 39

In Mauritius with our system of coalitions, alliances all the time, we have to make
concessions all the time and what happens in a political party is that when it nominates a
candidate, it considers the chances of getting that candidate elected. Hence, when a candidate
is already popular in a constituency, they won’t remove him to put a woman because each
political party wants to have the maximum number of candidates elected … its role is to
nominate candidates in places with regard to their chances of being elected.32

This system disadvantages women especially when they are newcomers to active politics.
Furthermore, the strong focus attributed to the sensitive and emotional issues of
ethnicity and religion in Mauritian politics has left little space for the gender element to
achieve any significant growth. This state of affairs greatly impacts on women’s chances
of obtaining an electoral ticket. In order to maximise chances of electoral success,
political parties need to ensure that all communities are adequately represented in their
party. Although this is the case for representation on the basis of religion and ethnicity,
representation on the basis of gender does not receive equal importance. Commenting on
the July 2005 general elections, the EISA Election Observer Mission to the 2005
Mauritius National Assembly Elections noted that:
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

The selection of candidates by the two alliances follows a very complex process. This
involves negotiation as to the number of candidates for each partner, the ethnic and sub-
ethnic allotment and positioning by constituency, gender factor and the specific choice of
candidates for individual constituencies by the opponent, amongst others. (EISA 2005b, 3)

Party leaders tend to prioritise the nomination of representatives of social, religious and
ethnic groups over gender. These nominees are mainly male candidates and they benefit
from strong lobbies and wide support of sociocultural associations and have a higher
probability of being elected than newcomers. According to Sheila Bappoo, these lobbies
have a strong male bias: ‘The lobbies, be it on terms of ethnicity, culture or religion, are
very strong and women do not form part of these lobbies …’33 Women are thus
marginalised because of the patriarchal lobby of sociocultural associations. The few
women who are nominated and eventually elected often come from families that have a
history of active political involvement or have been working as social workers and have
strong support in their region. Men, however, have the support and sponsorship of
sociocultural organisations in addition to familial support. The bulk of sociocultural
organisations are from the Hindu community and these organisations exert pressure on
political parties to nominate representatives of their groups on the list of candidates for
elections based on caste and linguistic group.34 A female politician explained how these
organisations affect the choice of electoral candidates:

You know, I learnt this in politics, I was shocked to see that they consider the Raviveds,
Rajput, Babouji Maharaj, Vaish, etc. And it is really sad and when you see that someone is
nominated as minister, even the colleagues say that it was not easy, it is a shame. But what
could we do, we needed to put a Ravived there.35

Sociocultural associations are patriarchal bodies that have been formed and ruled by men.
This state of affairs comes out strongly in the experience of woman politicians. One
female politician described how she was invited to speak at a meeting organised by a
sociocultural organisation called ‘The Voice of Hindus’. She stated that she was ‘the only
woman in that meeting, it was a meeting among men, it was crazy!’36 She was the only
 40 R. Ramtohul

woman in a hostile audience of men who were not keen on listening to a speech made by
a woman. Nevertheless, she managed to handle the situation and get the attention of the
audience. Both independent women activists and women politicians concur that
sociocultural associations lobby for male politicians of their choice to be nominated by
the different political parties. On this issue, female activist Dulari Jugnarain states: ‘The
men only nominate men, it is as though women do not belong to a caste, women do not
belong to a community…’37 Similarly, a senior female politician explained that men are
mainly involved in sociocultural associations and that: ‘When they make demands for
certain candidates hmmm, the demands are for male candidates, not female candidates’.38
Another female politician stated: ‘I have seen a case where we had a woman candidate,
they came, they said no, no, no, no, no, we do not want this representative, here is our
representative, and it was a man’.39
These candidates are either sponsored by such organisations or have gained
popularity or a position with their help and support. Another senior woman politician40
also explained that given the smaller supply of women politicians, often these women do
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

not meet the criteria of sociocultural associations with regard to religion, ethnicity and
caste. This leads to the nomination of fewer women candidates at elections. The
specificities of the Mauritian political system which makes space for representation on
religious, ethnic and caste grounds therefore has an acute gender dimension as women are
marginalised in the competition for tickets by the different groups mainly represented by
male-dominated organisations.
Testimonies mostly from women, received by the Commission on Constitutional and
Electoral Reform reveal the fact that political parties are male dominated and lack due
sensitivity for the needs and concerns of women. A major issue that arose was that parties
made no serious attempt to encourage women to stand for office or to find seats for
women in safe constituencies (Sachs, Tandon, and Ahnee 2002). Political parties in
Mauritius also function in a rather authoritarian style with party leaders making all key
decisions. The EISA Election Observer Mission to the 2005 Mauritius National Assembly
Elections concludes that:

There is a semblance of democracy in the main parties but no real internal democracy,
certainly not in terms of process for selection and choice of candidates. There are no
primaries even at party level. The party leaders determine the choice, either alone or in
conjunction with a small team of close collaborators, selected by the leaders themselves.
(EISA 2005b, 2–3)

The main political parties are led by men and hence, male leadership ends up selecting
which women are promoted within the party structures and parliament. Women are at
times not be given tickets in safe constituencies and therefore are just token candidates
uplifting the party image in terms of gender equality. Moreover, men are not willing to
make space for women at the level of party leadership and nomination as political
candidates.41 Sheila Bappoo, who has been a member of the three principal political
parties (MLP, MMM and MSM), argues that men do not make much of an effort to
include women at decision-making level of all parties.42 A female MP explained that the
allocation of tickets to women candidates is often perceived as a favour for these women.
She states:
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 41

Men till today have great difficulty in making place for women. They find it difficult and
when a woman occupies a certain position in politics, they try to make it appear that they did
her a favour, they gave her a place, you see, as if she does not have a place for herself, but ok
we have been very generous in giving her a place.43

Although all the main political parties have a women’s section or a women’s ‘wing’, the
latter are closely bound by the party ideology and have little freedom to press for the
nomination of a greater number of women candidates, unless such a measure has been
approved by the political bureau. In this context, Bunwaree and Kasenally (2005, 30)
state that while the women’s wings are able to exert autonomy when dealing with gender-
related matters, they have minimal impact with regard to other party matters that remain
male dominated. Women’s wings of the different political parties also compete with each
other for the women’s vote, adhesion and loyalty. There is no evidence of collaboration
between the women’s sections of the different political parties, except when parties are
together in an official alliance. This competition and lack of collaboration between
women’s groups weakens women’s voices on political representation and reforming
political institutions in the country. On the one hand, women are divided and margin-
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

alised from politics by their communal identity and on the other, political parties and
party control tends to aggravate the divisions between women on political issues.

The women’s lobby for political citizenship

The early women’s organisations during colonial times were mainly associated with
religious organisations due to the segregation of the different communities. After
independence, in the 1970s, with the rise in trade union activity and social movements,
more autonomous women’s organisations were formed, focusing on women’s rights
especially within marriage. It was only from the year 2000 onwards that some women’s
organisations began publicly lobbying for a more pronounced representation of women in
parliament. Action initiated by women’s organisations was largely guided and motivated
by the regional trend with the rise in women’s parliamentary presence on the African
continent and commitments taken by the Mauritian Government to enhance women’s
political presence, especially the ratification of the SADC Declaration on Gender and
Development (1997). Two women’s organisations – FédèrAction and the Majority Party
(which was a women’s party) were formed on the eve of the 2005 elections. They
specifically lobbied for a 30% presence of women in the Mauritian Parliament.
FédèrAction organised a public march where participants demanded the respect of
women’s rights and for all political parties to field at least one woman candidate in each
constituency. Founder member Sheila Bunwaree explained:

We thought that the fact that Mauritius had the chair of SADC at that time … it was an
excellent opportunity to put pressure on this very male dominated structure that are political
parties and give them a kind of a lesson and tell them that hey, women want to make their
voices heard and we want to claim for that political space … we said that unless we protest
openly and show up the politics of resistance to the way that they are handling things, the
situation, they will not probably pay enough attention.44

Another gender focused NGO, Media Watch Organisation organised a workshop on

women and politics, where political leaders were invited to explain their strategies on
women’s representation. The Majority Party put women candidates to stand for election
 42 R. Ramtohul

in all the constituencies where political parties had not nominated any woman to enable a
30% presence of women in parliament. However, the Majority Party received very little
support and help from the female population. Paula Atchia, the founder, acknowledged
that the main weakness of the party and its strategy was the failure to ‘get all the women
together’.45 WIN, set up in 2006, has been, through its affiliated branch Women in
Politics (WIP), lobbying for a greater presence of women in parliament. WIP has also
been organising training courses to train women to assume leadership positions in greater
numbers and to participate in active politics. However, the results of the 2010 and 2014
elections indicate that very little was done by political parties to nominate more women.
Communal nomination and the lobbies of sociocultural organisations are much stronger,
especially for general elections. Inroads have nonetheless been made for women’s
representation in local government.
While the women’s organisations mentioned above have been lobbying for a greater
presence of women in parliament, they did not command the support of the bulk of the
population of women in the country which would have made the issue a national concern,
and the results of the elections also show that women do not vote strategically in
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Mauritius. There is also insufficient collaboration between women politicians and

women’s organisations on the issue of political representation of women. One female
politician stated that after elections:

Nobody talks about proportional representation, nobody talks about increasing the number of
women in parliament – but this is hypocrisy! Actions have to be consistent. There is a need
to continue exerting pressure on government to introduce proportional representation … if it
had been genuine, it would have been a constant fight.46

The lack of mutual trust between women politicians and representatives of women’s
organisations prevents them from forming a long-standing collaborative relationship,
which is a major cause of the weak women’s lobby on political representation.
Consequently, the issue of women’s political citizenship has as yet not received the
support of the women of the country.

Conclusion
This paper has shown how communalism has a major bearing on women’s political
citizenship in Mauritius, leading to a persistent marginal presence of women in
parliament. The political system and institutions were designed to ensure communal
representation in parliament whereas gendered representation was not considered.
Moreover, the strong emphasis placed on ethnic and communal representation works
against women’s representation as men tend to be supported by sociocultural organisa-
tions as the chosen representatives of the different ethnic and communal groups.
Communalism has also made the Mauritian political system highly resistant to change
because sensitivities surrounding representation of the different communities are high,
rendering political leaders reluctant to undertake any change which would affect their
electoral popularity. Such resistance has delayed electoral reform in the country, which
would have made space for more women in parliament. Multiple identities and the stress
over representational and political intersectionality have also had an impact on women’s
mobilisation for more equitable political citizenship. This fact comes up through the
silences of women over the franchise and the exclusion of women from the main political
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 43

debates of the country. Women’s organisations with the potential to form a women’s
movement have not been able to forge a national consensus on the significance of
parliamentary representation for women’s rights citizenship in the country. This state of
affairs is due to the communal divisions that exert a heavy influence on the political
affairs of the country and the discords in the women’s movement itself. The Mauritian
political situation therefore highlights the difficulties of ensuring a balanced or adequate
representation of women in parliament in a plural society. It also reveals the challenges
that women face, which prevent them from enjoying the full benefits of their political
rights and citizenship because of conflicts and competition between multiple identities.

Notes
1. The civil element encompasses the rights necessary for individual freedom, such as liberty of
the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith, the right to own property and to conclude
valid contracts, as well as the right to justice. The social element covers the right to economic
welfare and security, the right to social heritage and to a decent standard of living.
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

2. Women politicians were members of the main political parties (MMM, MLP, Parti Mauricien
Social Démocrate and Mouvement Socialiste Mauricien) and the Majority Party, which was a
women’s party. Names of some women members of parliament have been withheld at their
request to protect their privacy. Women activists were from the Mauritius Alliance of Women,
Muvman Liberasyon Fam, MediaWatch Organisation, Women’s Self Help Association,
FederAction.
3. More than 451,000 Indian men, women and children came to Mauritius before Indian
immigration formally ended in 1910 and out of these immigrants; more than 294,000 remained
on the island permanently (Allen 1999, 16).
4. The Hindus were divided into three groups: Sanatanists, Arya Samajists and Kabir Panthis
(Sutton 2007, 251). Hindus are also subdivided into four linguistic groups: Hindi or Bhojpuri,
Tamil, Telegu and Marathi. The Hindi or Bhojpuri speaking Hindus make up the 40.2% of the
total population and 76.5% of the Hindu population. The Tamils are the second largest
component making up 13.9%. Telugus represent 5.6% and Marathis 4% (Hollup 1994, 299).
The Bhojpuri speaking Hindus are further divided into four castes: Brahmin/Babujee (high
caste), Vaish (middle castes), Rajput and Ravived (low castes; 301). The Vaish is the largest
caste population on the island.
5. See Eriksen (1991), Carroll and Carroll (2000), Hempel (2009).
6. Furnivall (1948), Smith (1965) – cited in Fenton (1999).
7. Minority groups included the Muslims, Sino-Mauritians and the ‘General Population’ which
includes Creoles, ‘gens de couleur’ and Franco-Mauritians.
8. The term ‘communalism’ is believed to originate from colonial rule in the nineteenth century. It
refers to the use and manipulation of religious and/or ethnic differences for political ends
antithetical to national (or colonial) interest (Bates 2000, 1).
9. This was an agreement between the MSM led by Sir Aneerood Jugnauth (a Hindu) and the
MMM led by Paul Bérenger (a Franco-Mauritian) whereby in case of victory, the five-year
period of governance would be shared between the two leaders. Jugnauth was to have three
years and Bérenger two years as Prime Minister.
10. Activities of NGOs range from artistic to women’s groups, and some are dedicated to charity,
the disabled and senior citizens.
11. Tinker (1974), Seegobin and Collen (1977); Allen (1966, 1975), Tinker (1976) – cited in
Mukonoweshuro (1991, 201).
12. Examples of such organisations include the Mauritius Andra Maha Sabha (a Telegu
Association); the Hindu Ekta Sang (Hindu Unity – a Vaish organisation); the Arya Samaj
(Hindu); the Voice of Hindus; the Mauritius Tamil Council (for the Tamils) and the Sanatan
Dharma Temples Federation (Hindu).
13. Interview of Jocelyn Chan Low (Associate Professor of History, University of Mauritius) in
‘Sociétés socioculturelles: lobbyistes à l’oeuvre’, Le Défi Quotidien (5 March 2012).
 44 R. Ramtohul

14. Hilbert, P. (2012) ‘Suite à la declaration du père Véder – L’Etat et la religion, deux entités
indissociables? Le Défi Quotidien (29 August 2012).
15. Interview: ‘Que les Mauriciens qui veulent d’un Etat séculier se fassent entendre, a déclaré Nita
Deerpalsing’. Weekend (8 July 2012) – translated from the French text.
16. For example, the Arya Samaj, set up in 1910, advocated the abolition of the caste system and
education for girls (Mannick 1979). The Catholic Church also provided domestic training such
as cooking and housewife skills for women through affiliated organisations such as Les Écoles
Ménagères.
17. Some research has nonetheless been done on women and politics in contemporary times. See
Ramtohul (2009a), Bunwaree (2010).
18. These debates were integrally reproduced in the press (1946 and 1947) and also in Pahlad
Ramsurrun’s (2006) two volumes titled Sir Seewoosagar Ramgoolam: Battles for a Democratic
Constitution of Mauritius.
19. Under the 1885 Constitution, voting rights were based on high property and educational
qualifications, which favoured the Franco-Mauritians and ‘gens de couleur’. Most of the Indo-
Mauritians (Hindus and Muslims) and Creoles who were manual workers and illiterate did not
have the franchise.
20. Interview of Mrs Sheela Baguant, founder member of the Women’s Self Help Association – 25
February 2007).
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

21. These include FederAction, the Majority Party and Media Watch Organisation.
22. For electoral purposes, the island of Mauritius is divided into 20 three-member constituencies,
with approximately half in rural areas where Hindus are the majority of inhabitants, and the
other half in urban areas where most of the other sections of the population live.
23. More Hindu candidates will stand for election in rural areas where the majority of residents are
Hindus, whereas a greater number of candidates belonging to the General Population category
would be posted in the urban constituencies.
24. Section 5 (1) of the Constitution of Mauritius states that:

in order to ensure a fair and adequate representation of each community, there shall be 8
seats in the Assembly, additional to the 62 seats for members representing constituencies,
which shall so far as is possible be allocated to persons belonging to parties who have stood
as candidates for election as members at the general election but have not been returned as
members to represent constituencies…

25. The Best Loser System was put in place as a concession to the Muslims, who had originally
requested separate electoral rolls for each of the four recognised communities, to ensure that
they would control 11 of the 60 seats in parliament, in proportion to their numbers
(Srebrnik 2002).
26. See Bunwaree (1994), Mathur (1997), Nave (1998), Srebrnik (2002).
27. These include Fédération de Creoles Mauriciens and Hizbullah (L’Express 5 May 2008).
28. L’Express (20 June 2008), Le Mauricien (21 June 2008).
29. Interview with female politician – 17 February 2007.
30. Interview with female politician – 17 February 2007, Interview with female politician – 14
January 2007.
31. Interview of Sheila Bappoo in Weekend (22 February 2004).
32. Interview with female politician – 10 July 2007.
33. Interview of Sheila Bappoo in Lowe-Morna and Tolmay (2007, 114).
34. The Hindus are divided into linguistic groups, the main ones are: Hindi speaking Hindus,
Tamils, Telegus and Marathis. The Hindi speaking Hindus are further subdivided by caste:
Brahmin, Vaishya, Ravived and Rajput. Most Hindus are of the Vaishya caste and the Hindu
Prime Ministers the country has had (Sir Seewoosagar Ramgoolam, Sir Aneerood Jugnauth
and Dr Navin Ramgoolam) are all of the Vaishya caste.
35. Interview with female politician – 30 January 2007.
36. Interview with female politician – 10 July 2007.
37. Interview of Dulari Jugnarain – 20 February 2007.
38. Interview with female politician – 18 July 2007.
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 45

39. Interview with female politician – 10 July 2007.

40. Interview with female politician – 14 January 2007.
41. Interview with female MP – 14 January 2007, interview with female MP – 30 January 2007.
42. Interview of Sheila Bappoo in Weekend (22 February 2004).
43. Interview with female MP – 30 January 2007.
44. Interview of Sheila Bunwaree – 31 January 2007.
45. Interview of Paula Atchia – 5 July 20.07.
46. Interview with female politician – 17 February 2007.

Note on contributor
Ramola Ramtohul is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Studies at the University of
Mauritius. She is also a Collaborative Member at the Centre of African Studies at the University of
Cambridge. Her research interests are in gender, politics and citizenship in multicultural contexts.
Some of her publications are: Amri, L. and Ramtohul, R. (eds) (2014) Gender and Citizenship in
Africa in The Global Age. Dakar: CODESRIA; ‘Gender and Politicized Religion in Mauritius’,
Sociedad y Religion (2014) 42 (24): 194–208; ‘Fractured Sisterhood: The Historical Evolution of
the Women’s Movement in Mauritius’, Afrika Zamani (2013) 18 & 19: 71–101; ‘Academic freedom
in a state sponsored African university: The case of the University of Mauritius’, American
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Association of University Professors Journal of Academic Freedom 2012 (3).

References
Allen, R. B. 1999. Slaves, Freedmen, and Indentured Laborers in Colonial Mauritius. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bates, C. 2000. “Communalism and Identity among South Asians in Diaspora.” Working Paper No.
2. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics. South Asia Institute, Department
of Political Science, University of Heidelberg. Accessed July 16, 2014. http://archiv.ub.uni-
heidelberg.de/volltextserver/4007/1/hpsacp2.pdf.
Bauer, O. 1940. The National Question (Hebrew). Rehavia: Hakibutz Ha’artzi.
Benedict, B. 1965. Mauritius: The Problems of a Plural Society. London: Institute of Race
Relations.
Bowman, L. W. 1991. Mauritius: Democracy and Development in the Indian Ocean. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Brautigam, D. 1997. “Institutions, Economic Reform, and Democratic Consolidation in Mauritius.”
Comparative Politics 30 (1): 45–62. doi:10.2307/422192.
Bunwaree, S. 1994. Mauritian Education in a Global Economy. Mauritius: Editions de L’Ocean
Indien.
Bunwaree, S. 2010. Governance, Gender and Politics in Mauritius. Mauritius: Editions Le
Printemps.
Bunwaree, S., and R. Kasenally. 2005. “Political Parties and Democracy in Mauritius.” EISA
Research Report No. 19. Johannesburg: EISA.
Carroll, B. W., and Carroll, T. 2000. “Accommodating Ethnic diversity in a Modernizing Democratic
State: Theory and Practice in the case of Mauritius.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23 (1): 120–142.
doi:10.1080/014198700329150.
Castles, S. 1994. “Democracy and Multicultural Citizenship: Australian Debates and Their
Relevance for Western Europe.” In From Aliens to Citizens, edited by R. Bauböck, 3–28.
Avebury: Aldershot.
Chiroro, B. 2005. “Engendering Democracy through the Ballot Box in the Mauritius 2005
Elections.” EISA Occasional Paper No. 37. Johannesburg: Electoral Institute of Southern Africa.
Claveyrolas, M. 2012. “With or Without Roots: Conflicting Memories of Slavery and Indentured
Labour in the Mauritian Public Space.” In Politics of Memory: Making Slavery Visible in the
Public Space, edited by A. L. Araujo, 54–70. New York: Routledge.
Cole, E. R. 2008. “Coalitions as a Model for Intersectionality: From Practice to Theory.” Sex Roles
59 (5–6): 443–453. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9419-1.
Collins, P. H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of
Empowerment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
 46 R. Ramtohul

Coote, A., and P. Pattullo. 1990. Power and Prejudice. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson.
Crenshaw, K. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against
Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241–1299. doi:10.2307/1229039.
Dean, J. 1996. Solidarity of Strangers: Feminism after Identity Politics. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Dean, J, ed. 1997. Feminism and the New Democracy: Resisting the Political. London: Sage.
Eisenlohr, P. 2006. Little India: Diaspora, Time and Ethnolinguistic Belonging in Hindu Mauritius.
London: University of California Press.
Eisenlohr, P. 2011. “Religious Media, Devotional Islam, and the Morality of Ethnic Pluralism in
Mauritius.” World Development 39 (2): 261–269. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.11.026.
Electoral Institute of Southern Africa. 2005a. Election Update 2005: Mauritius. No. 1, 17 June
2005. Accessed August 31, 2005. http://www/eisa.org.za/PDF/eu200501mu.pdf.
Electoral Institute of Southern Africa. 2005b. Election Observer Mission to the 2005 Mauritius
National Assembly Election – Interim Statement. Accessed September 1, 2005. http://www.eisa.
org.za/WEP/mau2005is.htm.
Eriksen, T. H. 1991. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eriksen, T. H. 1998. Common Denominators: Ethnicity, Nation Building and Compromise in
Mauritius. Oxford: Berg.
Fenton, S. 1999. Ethnicity: Racism, Class and Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Hempel, L. M. 2009. “Power, Wealth and Common Identity: Access to Resources and Ethnic
Identification in a Plural Society.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 32 (3): 460–489. doi:10.1080/
01419870701722422.
Hollup, O. 1994. “The Disintegration of Caste and Changing Concepts of Indian Ethnic Identity in
Mauritius.” Ethnology 33 (4): 297–316. doi:10.2307/3773901.
Karam, A., ed. 1998. Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers. Stockholm: IDEA.
Laville, R. 2000. “In the Politics of the Rainbow: Creoles and Civil Society in Mauritius.” Journal
of Contemporary African Studies 18 (2): 277–294. doi:10.1080/713675629.
Lister, R. 2003. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lowe-Morna, C., and S. Tolmay, eds. 2007. At the Coalface: Gender and Local Government in
Southern Africa. Johannesburg: Genderlinks.
Mannick, A. R. 1979. Mauritius: The Development of a Plural Society. Nottingham: Spokesman.
Marshall, T. H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matland, R. E. 2005. “Enhancing Women’s Political Participation: Legislative Recruitment and
Electoral Systems.” In Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers. Rev. ed., edited by J. Ballington
and A. Karam, 93–111. Stockholm: IDEA.
Mathur, H. 1997. “Parliamentary Representation of Minority Communities: The Mauritian
Experience.” Africa Today 44 (1): 61–83.
Miles, W. F. S. 1999. “The Mauritius Enigma.” Journal of Democracy 10 (2): 91–104. doi:10.1353/
jod.1999.0036.
Mohanty, C. T, A. Russo, and L. Torres, eds. 1991. Third World Women and the Politics of
Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Mukonoweshuro, E. G. 1991. “Containing Political Stability in a Poly-ethnic Society: The Case of
Mauritius.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 14 (2): 199–224. doi:10.1080/01419870.1991.9993707.
Nave, A. 1998. “The Institutionalisation of Communalism: The Best Loser System in Mauritius.” In
Consolidating the Rainbow: Independent Mauritius, 1968–1998, edited M. Carter, 19–26. Port
Louis: Centre for Research on Indian Ocean Societies.
Pateman, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Patten, P. 2001. Task Force Report. Port Louis: Ministry of Women’s Rights, Child Development
and Family Welfare.
Ramsurrun, P. 2006. Sir Seewoosagar Ramgoolam: Battles for a Democratic Constitution of
Mauritius (Volumes 1 and 2). New Delhi: New Dawn Press.
Ramtohul, R. 2009a. “Women and Politics in a Plural Society: The Case of Mauritius.” PhD diss.,
University of Cape Town.
Ramtohul, R. 2009b. “Engendering Mauritian History: The Hidden Controversies over Female
Suffrage.” Afrika Zamani 17: 63–80.
 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 47

Razavi, S., and A. Jenichen. 2010. “The Unhappy Marriage of Religion and Politics: Problems and
Pitfalls for Gender Equality.” Third World Quarterly 31 (6): 833–850. doi:10.1080/01436597.
2010.502700.
Sachs, A., B. B. Tandon, and R. Ahnee. 2002. Report on the Commission on Constitutional and
Electoral Reform. Port Louis: Prime Minister’s Office.
Sarvasy, W., and B. Siim. 1994. “Gender, Transitions to Democracy, and Citizenship.” Social
Politics 1 (3): 249–255.
Sawer, M., M. Tremblay, and L. Trimble. 2006. “Patterns and Practice in the Parliamentary
Representation of Women.” In Representing Women in Parliament: A Comparative Study, edited
by M. Sawer, M. Tremblay, and L. Trimble, 1–23. London: Routledge.
Simmons, A. S. 1982. Modern Mauritius: The Politics of Decolonization. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Spelman, E. 1988. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Squires, J., and M. Wickham-Jones. 2001. Women in Parliament: A Comparative Analysis.
Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.
Srebrnik, H. 2002. “‘Full Sound and Fury’: Three Decades of Parliamentary Politics in Mauritius.”
Journal of Southern African Studies 28 (2): 277–289. doi:10.1080/03057070220140702.
Stasiulis, D., and N. Yuval-Davis. 1995. “Introduction: Beyond Dichotomies – Gender, Race,
Downloaded by [FU Berlin] at 22:57 14 May 2015

Ethnicity and Class in Settler Societies.” In Unsettling Settler Societies: Articulations of Gender,
Race, Ethnicity and Class, edited by D. Stasiulis and N. Yuval-Davis, 1–38. London: Sage.
Sutton, D. 2007. “The Political Consecration of Community in Mauritius, 1948–68.” The Journal of
Imperial and Commonwealth History 35 (2): 239–262. doi:10.1080/03086530701337609.
Werbner, P., and N. Yuval-Davis. 1999. “Introduction: Women and the New Discourse of
Citizenship.” In Women, Citizenship and Difference, edited by N. Y. Davis and P. Werbner, 1–
38. London: Zed Books.
World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Yuval-Davis, N. 1998. “Gender and Nation.” In Women, Ethnicity and Nationalism: The Politics of
Transition, edited by R. Wilford and R. L. Miller, 21–31. London: Routledge.
Yuval-Davis, N., and F. Anthias, eds. 1989. Woman-Nation-State. London: Macmillan.