Blog: The Debate must go on

The debate on electoral reforms must go on and on and on until every section of  society is convinced that it is in the interest of the nation and nation building that the Best Loser System is abolished and a dose of PR is introduced. At present, in the First Past the Post System, the votes cast in favour of the losing party are totally wasted.

It is healthy that opinion leaders and the public in general are taking seriously the desire of the Prime Minister to amend the constitution. In the beginning, many thought that the Carcassonne Report on electoral reforms has come handy to divert the attention of the people from the unhealthy situation created by the resignation of the MSM members from the ruling alliance and their joining the opposition ranks.

The MMM had seized the opportunity to call for general elections. MSM had opened discussions for a remake of the 2000 alliance which had defeated the alliance of then ruling Labour Party. The MMM had also succeeded in dragging the presidency into party politics. Its leader, Paul Berenger, openly met the President to discuss the political scene. Pravind Jugnauth did not object to, but rather welcomed the suggestion that Sir Anerood resigns and leads the MMM /MSM alliance. The MMM insisted that without Sir Anerood, there will be no alliance. This clearly meant that he did not want to share the premiership with Pravind. In reality, it meant that Pravind is not ready, perhaps incapable in becoming Prime Minister. What a poor opinion MMM has of Pravind and his leadership!

Pravind Jugnauth was appointed leader of the MSM since SAJ moved to le Réduit as President in 2003. He was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance under Paul Berenger. They fought the 2005 general elections together and lost. Pravind Jugnauth even lost his seat. For the first time, an alliance between the two main political parties was defeated. No mean achievement for Labour and Navin Ramgoolam.

MMM dropped MSM. It should be recalled that Pravind Jugnauth led his party in government in 2010 general elections under the leadership of Navin Ramgoolam. Earlier he had returned to Parliament in a by-election from Moka-Quartier Militaire by defeating his uncle Ashock Jugnauth. He had received the full support of Labour.

But alas, he followed Maya Hanoomanjee and drove his party into the opposition. The majority of his followers felt betrayed. The traditional opinion leaders from the opposition and the media were having a field day. They predicted that Navin Ramgoolam would not be able to govern with a slender majority.

But Navin Ramgoolam easily passed the 2012 budget. He proved the majority on the floor. Budget is an issue on which a government falls if it is not passed.

And then came the Carcassonne Report on electoral reforms. He had made radical recommendations. A good academic exercise but impractical. Cut off from the Mauritian reality. But it had the merit of recommending the abolition of the BSL and introduction of PR besides redefining electoral boundaries with a reduced number of constituencies, with four to six members per constituency.

The report was rejected but served as a good basis to open discussions with all parties concerned. Rama Sithanen, on account of his expertise on constitutional matters and his experience of Mauritian politics, proposed an alternative acceptable to the Prime Minister and the majority.

But in a democracy and in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural society, it is not always that the rule of the majority should prevail. In certain matters, the hearts and minds of all parties should be won to maintain stability and progress and peace.

All parties agree that communalism and casteism should be banned. It is time to move on towards full nationhood by abolishing BSL which obliges every candidate to declare his community at general election. Obviously it is outdated and a hindrance towards our march to full nationhood. But BSL provides a constitutional psychological guarantee that minorities will, in any eventuality, be represented in Parliament.

Sithanen has proved after a study of the results of all general elections since 1968, that minorities would be better off with the abolition of BSL and the introduction of PR. But who trusts and believes facts and figures? It is not a question of facts and figures. The leaders of the Muslim community with the exception of Shakeel Mohammed feel that the Muslim community is not comfortable with the abolition of BSL. Even the elected Muslim members of the Labour Party are silent.

By his stand, Navin Ramgoolam stands head and shoulder above all political leaders. He has taken a calculated risk. He has linked the abolition of BSL with the introduction of PR. It is a package. The MMM has to take it or leave it. The MMM wants to maintain BSL and the introduction to PR. It wants to get back the Muslim vote bank. No reform can take place without the support of the MMM. Labour does not enjoy the required majority to amend the constitution.

Navin Ramgoolam delayed his departure for his official visit to India by a day to attend the Yaum Um Nabi celebrations to address the Muslim community directly. He received the usual warm welcome similar to the one he had received at the convocation ceremony of the Doha Academy. He maintained his position but assured the Muslim community that no reform will be introduced if it is not accepted by all sections of the Mauritian society.

Surprisingly, his stand has received a very powerful and timely support from an unexpected quarter. From the Bishop of Port Louis, Monsignor Maurice Piat. Using choicest words in an emotionally charged statement, he called upon all Mauritians to awaken the mauritianism lying in their heart and to rise in favour of nationhood. He said "it is not necessary for Mauritians to be represented only by members of their communities in Parliament. Others can do so as well. I believe they can do it better".

The support the entire nation gives to our athletes at international competitions and the pride every Mauritian feels at the winners is proof that we can function as a nation. I am also reminded of a story in the early sixties during Indo-Chinese border war. At a Paris restaurant, persons resembling Chinese and Indians were sharing and enjoying a meal, talking and laughing, speaking a common language. Some onlookers could not resist asking them how they can be so familiar and friendly when India and China are at war. The answer they said was simple: They were not Chinese and Indians. They were Mauritians and they were speaking Creole.

Unfortunately for PR, the consensus which was being reached has become doubtful with the results of the regional elections in Rodrigues. The majority of four has been converted into a majority of one by the PR system. I believe that the relativity of the election results should not be disturbed by any form of PR.

Let us not fool ourselves into believing that communalism and casteism will disappear by magic with abolition of BSL and an introduction of PR. I am afraid that communalism and casteism will continue to prevail for quite some time in a disguised manner. But our struggle should start somewhere and now. Our opinion and political leaders should rise as Navin Ramgoolam, Shakeel Mohammed and Monsignor Piat have done. Lead us.

The wonderful picture of the college students celebrating their laureates this week comes to my mind. The students were taking genuine pride in their achievements. No communal or caste feelings. Expression of genuine mauritianism.

Unfortunately the communal and caste forces are ready to take over. They will celebrate the success of these students as their own. They will plant the seed of communal and caste poison in their minds. I ask myself what has been their contribution in the success of these young minds. Nil. It was their hard work, support from their parents and above all, their teachers who accompanied them.

I believe the younger generation has the capacity to realise our dream of nationhood. Nobody can stop their march. Until then the debate must go on and on.