Blog: MMM’s two dangerous proposals - PR and Power-sharing

Paul Berenger, leader of the MMM and the opposition deserves our appreciation for skillfully and successfully avoiding discussing and concluding an alliance with MSM. And at the same time opening a line of communication with Labour.

Jayen Cuttaree, MMM former deputy leader, spent three hours talking to the Prime Minister, followed by Paul Berenger himself, meeting the PM at the Treasury Building. Another meeting with the PM is scheduled shortly. Paul Berenger and Pravind Jugnauth have already met thrice.

To discuss what? MMM’s agenda of electoral reforms and the second republic. Electoral reforms being already part of the government’s program, Navin Ramgoolam does not find it inconvenient to go along MMM’s wish.

MMM and its leader have found a new vigour after successfully driving MSM out of the Alliance de l’Avenir on the Medpoint issue. They have started once more dreaming either being in power or in a power sharing position. Of course not with the MSM. Their utmost desire is to be in power in a post-electoral alliance with Labour. Their pre-electoral proposal having failed in 2010 and knowing full well that in the present situation they cannot win alone, their strategy is for a post-electoral alliance.

Based on the number of votes they have polled in the 2010 elections, they believe they will emerge as a single largest party and as such a dominating partner in an alliance.

Their main proposal for the electoral reforms is the introduction of proportional representation (PR) and for a second republic, a power-sharing between the Prime Minister and the President. Two most dangerous proposals. If ever Labour and MSM fall into the trap, these proposals will introduce communalism and legally divide our society, and create two centers of power at the top.

Labour and MSM have both opposed the PR system. It was in 1966 that Banwell was appointed Electoral Commissioner to make a report for the organisation of the 1967 elections which was to lead the country to independence. Banwell had made the following recommendations:

1. A system of allocation of seats to ensure proper representations based on multi member constituencies.

2. Reservation of seats to ensure fair representations of all communities.

Labour had proposed twenty single constituencies returning four candidates each to the Parliament in the First Past the Post System (FPTP). Any form of PR was rejected by Labour as PR is equal to communalism and division. Labour was ready to consider reservation to small communities.

Finally Banwell made the following recommendations:

1. 20 constituencies in Mauritius returning three members each and Rodrigues two members. At same time Banwell divided the population into four groups - Hindu, Muslim, General Population and Chinese - for electoral law purposes. FPTP was used in theory but in practice it was three past the post.

2. To overcome the problem of under-representation Banwell proposed five 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 under-represented community. Any party eligible to benefit from the best loser seat should secure it by direct election and with 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 Labour Party and Stonehouse a friend of the party was called as negotiator.

Stonehouse kept the delimitations of the constituencies and modified the followings:

1. The five constant correctives were changed to eight best loser seats.

2. The variable corrective which was a controversy and the 10 % votes were rejected.

The first four best loser seats were to be allocated to parties belonging to under-presented communities irrespective to party affiliation. The community for the first four best losers is obtained by dividing the population of each of the communities by the number of seats obtained by that community in general election plus one. The second four best losers were allocated on party and community basis.

The final proposal and actual electoral system is based on Banwell recommendations as modified by Stonehouse. Thus there are 70 members in the parliament, 60 out of the 70 are directly elected through First Past the Post System  in 20 constituencies with returning three candidates each and Rodrigues two candidates. The remaining eight are the best losers chosen by the Electoral Supervisory Commission immediately after results of general elections.

I fail to understand why MMM is insisting on the PR system. Its strength was built on an anti-communal platform. It always said that anybody can represent any community on merit. PR will introduce the seed of destruction of our communal harmony and our march towards full nationhood and dividing our society into unmanageable political chaos.

The present system allows for equilibrium in representations of all components of our society in Parliament. It is all inclusive. We have progressed and reached a stage where by and large disciplined party voting pattern is exercised.

All party leaders know fully what a headache it is and what balancing act they have to perform in allocation of tickets at elections. PR will let loose hell. If for whatever unknown reason, political parties are bent on destroying our communal harmony and dividing our society, let a national debate take place on the issue. Let us involve civil society.

Berenger has let slip that both MMM and Labour enjoy the required number to modify the constitution to do so. They have no mandate to do so. It is a dangerous proposal. Paul Berenger said he has already convinced the MSM to accept a 10% threshold to benefit from PR. Are the MSM and Pravind Jugnauth so foolish as not to see through the strategy of the MMM? MSM was born to fight MMM. Sir Anerood did so successfully. Even when he allied himself with MMM on two occasions he kept MSM on top.

What has Pravind Jugnauth done when MMM had dropped him as hot potato after their defeat in 2005? They were both ruling parties then. Labour singlehandedly defeated them. Pravind was not even elected.

Then in the Alliance de l’Avenir, Navin Ramgoolam brought MSM into power and became vice Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

Today when the world is suffering from financial crisis, Euro zone crisis, slow economic recovery, instead of meeting the challenges, Pravind Jugnauth abdicates his responsibility, resigns as minister of Finance, forces other ministers of his party to resign and decides to cross the floor and sit in opposition. It is an unpardonable act, a betrayal of the mandate the electorate had given him. Now he can sieze the opportunity on the PR issue to stand up and be counted.

On issue of the power sharing between the PM and the President, it will create a perpetual state of coup d’état.

Two centers of power cannot co-exist and function smoothly. Does the MMM want a President to obstruct the will of the people entrusted in the hands of the PM? Or is it not a communal proposal? Knowing that the PM will normally and naturally come from the majority community? These proposals show how MMM has deviated from its original ideals.

Of course the issues of electoral reforms and the second republic should be discussed to improve the present system, not to destroy it.

After all, Navin Ramgoolam is right. He has a working comfortable majority and a mandate to govern. Economy and democratisation of the economy and facing the challenges posed by the consequences of the financial crisis and world economic slowdown and slow recovery should be his main concern. He can spare some time and go on talking. Good for our democracy. He should never forget the ideals of freedom and democracy for which Labour has always fought and stood for.