Publicité

Electoral reform :Would maintaining unequal constituencies be a breach of constitutional principles?

16 avril 2014, 12:33

Par

Partager cet article

Facebook X WhatsApp

lexpress.mu | Toute l'actualité de l'île Maurice en temps réel.

The current debate on electoral reform ignores the most fundamental reform which is required not only for purposes of equity but also to meet a constitutional requirement.

 

Section 39(3) of the Constitution of Mauritius provides that the Electoral Boundaries Commission shall make recommendations for alterations to the boundaries of the constituencies “as appear to the Commission to be required so that the number of inhabitants of each constituency is as nearly equal as is reasonably practicable to the population quota.”

 

However the Constitution also provides that there may be disparities in the number of inhabitants of each constituency “to take account of means of communication, geographical features, density of population and the boundaries of administrative areas.”

 

REGISTERED ELECTORS

 

Section 39(5) defines “population quota” as the “the number obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants of the island of Mauritius…to the latest official census of the population of Mauritius by 20”. According to the Central Statistical Office, as at end of 2013, the population of the Republic of Mauritius stood at 1,259,838.

 

The population quota for purposes of Section 39(3) of the Constitution would therefore currently stand at 62991.9 (1259838 divided by 20 =62991.9).

 

Thus, to comply with the requirement “that the number of inhabitants of each constituency is as nearly equal as is reasonably practicable to the population quota”, there is a constitutional duty to ensure that each of the 20 constituencies in Mauritius has around 63,000 inhabitants. The number of registered voters would thus be roughly the same in each constituency unless the number of underage inhabitants in one constituency is disproportionately higher. The numbers could also vary if the proviso to sub-section (3) applies and the Electoral Boundaries Commission has to take into consideration “means of communication, geographical features, density of population and the boundaries of administrative areas.”

 

However, the actual figures relating to the number of registered voters in each of the 20 constituencies is a far cry from what is supposed to be the constitutional principle of parity.

 

Indeed, the Register of voters as established by the Electoral Commissioner’s office shows that as at 2012, the figures were as follows. (See table).

 

 

The two constituencies with the highest number of registered electors i.e. No. 14 with 60,002 electors and No. 5 with 58,749 electors have almost 250% more registered electors than the two constituencies with the lowest number of electors i.e. No. 3 with 22,834 and No. 2 with 24,960.

 

Yet all constituencies elect three MP’s irrespective of the number of inhabitants in these constituencies. Thus the 60,000 registered electors in No.14 will have the same number of MP’s as the 22,834 electors in No. 3.

 

As a result of these disparities, the candidate who topped the list in the 2005 elections in No. 14 received over 22,000 votes whereas the candidate who topped the list in No. 3, was elected with just under 7,000 votes.

 

Are these gross disparities in line with the letter and spirit of the Constitution or did the Electoral Boundaries Commission have a duty to recommend alteration to constituency boundaries in line with the principle laid down in Section 39 (3) of the Constitution?

 

Unless the Commission took the view that the proviso applied and that no alteration had to be recommended taking into account the “means of communication, geographical features, density of population and the boundaries of administrative areas”. The present constituency boundaries in the country are not consistent with equitable principles and the Constitution.

 

Yet none of the leading protagonists in the current debate on electoral reform is raising this major issue and asking for boundaries determined in the 60’s on the basis of strictly political considerations of the time to be reviewed in line with constitutional principles.

 

LESS WASTED VOTES

 

The Government’s Consultation Paper goes even further and states in no uncertain terms that one of the “Government’s firm proposals” is to “accept unequal constituency size”. The Government states that “adjusting the number of electors per constituency will create more problems than it solves”.

 

In other words, the Government is in effect making the “firm proposal” that the Electoral Boundaries Commission which has the constitutional duty to “make recommendations for alterations to the boundaries of the constituencies”as appear to the Commissionto be required so thatthe number of inhabitants of each constituency is as nearly equal as is reasonably practicable to the population quota should not make such recommendations and maintain the status quo!

 

The parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition have refrained from including the issue of unequal constituencies as part of the debate over electoral reform even if this is the most glaring case of inequity. They are more focused on how many new MP’s our Parliament should have even if the number of MP’s per head is already one of the highest in the world.

 

This already unfair and serious situation will be compounded by the Government’s proposals to allocate new PR seats on the basis of “wasted votes” as the party losing the elections in the constituencies with fewer voters will have less ‘‘wasted votes” in the final tally for determining the number of seats to which they will be entitled.

 

The failure of the main protagonists in the current debate to address the fundamental question of equality amongst constituencies and respect for constitutional principles may cast doubt on the sincerity and commitment to modernise the electoral system and make it more just and fair.