Best Loser System: An Alternative Proposal

samedi 26 mai 2012

Lexpress.mu en page d'accueil |

newsletter |

archives |

rss

Actualités

Sports

Génération Y

Mauriciens d'ailleurs

Tribune

Tribune

Best Loser System: An Alternative Proposal

Lutchmiparsad Hazareesingh
02/03/12 | Commentaires [17]

Modifier la taille du texte:

Commentaires

Noter l'article

Partager et classer cet article

Dr. Sithanen’s work represents a valuable addition to the study of electoral politics of Mauritius and maps a credible approach to reform. It is based necessarily on a number of reasonable assumptions. However, I wonder whether all the assumptions are warranted and therefore whether the recommendations are as necessary or desirable as advocated. I would therefore like to propose an alternative way of resolving the current impasse by essentially relying on the wisdom of voters and the healing effects of time. Let me present the recommendations and then the rationale:

Recommendation 1: A constitutional amendment be passed as soon as possible doing away with the requirement that candidates state their religious affiliation or ethnic origin.

Recommendation 2: Under the same constitutional amendment, there should be a clause that states that any candidate who declines to state their religious affiliation or ethnic origin forfeit their right to be considered for entry to parliament under the Best Loser System.

Recommendation 3: The Best Loser System be strengthened by requiring that any candidate who wishes to enter parliament through the BLS swear an affidavit that s/he represents the group they purport to belong to.

Recommendation 4: Any party that obtains a minimum percentage of votes, say 10%, will have standing to challenge the selection of a candidate who is thought to be entering parliament by gaming the system. Individuals shall have no such standing.

Rationale:

Mauritius has undergone substantial sociological changes in the 40+ years since independence. These changes, however, are not uniform across the country and to assume that religious or communal considerations have no place in politics is to deny reality. This is not the case even in a more advanced democracy like the United States.

Minorities have every right to be concerned about adequate representation. This is a safety valve for the country, a matter of pride and respect for each community, and it is an opportunity for different voices to be heard.

Dr. Sithanen’s point that parties have, on their own, chosen to consider communal and religious affiliations in allocating seats is well taken. Given the way politics has been practiced in Mauritius, it is unlikely that this will change. Regardless, party leaders’ judgment is no substitute for constitutional guarantees.

Still, there is a large constituency in Mauritius that is tired of the old politics of “balkanizing” people on the basis of religion and race or ethnicity. This constituency is likely to grow and may even constitute the entire population someday. If it comes to pass, then time will have done its work and the best loser system will have died a natural death. The more realistic scenario is that we will always be in some intermediate state. This is in fact a good place to be.

One of the complicating factors in the BLS is that it is not defined in a way that reflects today’s reality. It is no surprise then that one candidate decided to take advantage of the system. It is certain that others will do so in the future, if only to show that it is unworkable. Retaining the BLS without clarifying its intent is asking for trouble. This is not the time to engage in a bidding war among communities by opening up definitions of the terms in the BLS either. Providing a method of challenging the selection of a candidate under very strict guidelines is a way to mitigate the risk of actors behaving in unwelcome ways.

This obviously begs the question: How does a court make a decision on what group a person belongs to? This is not a question that can be answered simply by laying a bunch of criteria down. Moreover, it is a question that may have a different answer ten years from now. There is a simple but elegant way of resolving this issue, to wit, use contemporary community standards. This obviates the need to provide a current definition and allows for evolving standards at the same time.

The need to do away with declaration of one’s faith or ethnicity just to be a candidate in an election is an affront to everyone and needs to be done away immediately. There isn’t any obvious way of doing it and still retain the BLS except in the way outlined above. Doing away with the BLS is unwise, unjust, and unnecessarily complicates the political dialogue and simply provides an excuse for delaying needed reform.

Imprimer

Envoyer

Sauvegarder

Les dernières reactions

BEST LOSER SYSTEM

Par:-XNAMRU Feb 17, 2012

Je trouve que c'est absurde de decliner son identite religieuse pour se porter candidat aux elections.Ceci dit j'aurais voulu que se souhait pourait etre accompagne d'une autre facon de partager la richesse de notre pays dans tout les domaines.Deja que malgre ce garde fou il y en a qui l'a contourne pour etre partout a la fois,alors au moins a l'assemble legislative on est sur d'avoir notre part !

Best Loser System: An Alternative Proposal

Par:-Alpha 2050 Feb 13, 2012

It is reported that an important part of the Muslim community is apparently against the elimination of the BLS but not necessarily against the need for a reform (modernization) of our electoral system. In fact, reading some of the comments, it would seem that they are not so much against the elimination of the BLS, but against the fact that they do not benefit from equal opportunity in civil service, para-statal and private sector jobs. It has been demonstrated, that, in fact, the Muslim community only marginally benefit from the BLS in terms of additional MP’s over the past decades. Therefore, they would be willing to relinquish the BLS for an alternative system if they obtain a reasonable guarantee of equal opportunity in job recruitment and small businesses. As they say, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!

electoral reform

Par:-moussa bayjou Feb 12, 2012

With all due respect to all contributing to the debate about retaining or abandoning the BLS I would like to add a few points. 1. I am sure all who are taking part are sincere and are raising valid points. 2. All are also showing an interest in the state of affairs of the constitution. 3. They show a sense of history and reveal some understandable apprehension about the future of political development in the island. 4. For me personally the debate begs three questions: (a) Do Mauritians feel confident enough to leave behind the BLS which necessarily carries religious and racial connotations which are not healthy for a modern mature political system. (b) Are Mauritians prepared to consider themselves as Mauritians no matter which religion or race thy belong to as politically it will make the people stronger and allow the politicians to raise to the occasion as they they have never been challenged before. The people will make demands they have never dared before. e.g. Equality of opportunity and the rule of law which are both basic requirements of a proper democracy. (c) Does Keeping the BLS necessarily mean cementing all the cracks that Mauritians are familiar with at a political level. It is a reinforcement of all the prejudices that nobody likes and an admission that we are incapable of learning from our past mistakes and are resistant to change and are prepared not only to stand still but to go back to where we were over 40 years ago as a nation. As a final note I would like to suggest we all begin to look at ourselves and decide what sort of Mauritius we would like to leave for all the children of the nation and our own children. Their future is interlinked undoubtedly. Postponing decision now is no remedy for all the ills we are familiar with: It is depriving the country and its citizens of their rightful rights to a prosperous and civilised future whereby the sky is the limit of their self development as a great nation in a small island.

Electoral reform

Par:-Patriote Feb 05, 2012

Bérenger started the game . Navin Ramgoolam seized this wonderful opportunity as the issue diverted the opinion from corruption with the Med Point affair. In Mauritius political issues are pationately debated with everyone being an expert. At the end of the game, the population will realise that the politicians took them for a ride. Too late !

BLS

Par:-Lutchmiparsad Hazareesingh Feb 05, 2012

Response to OUIKILEAK: At the time the constitutional framework was developed, the language used was a mix of racial and religious considerations, which has become more and more ambiguous over time. If a person who is of african origin converts to Islam but doesn't change his name to reflect his new religion, it is going to be a truly confusing situation for everyone. This is why a candidate who wishes to enter parliament though BLS needs to certify which of the group assured of representation under the current constitution he/she belongs to and that person can only choose one. The fact is that the constitution does not require that a person who enters parliament through the BLS "should represent" the group that the person belongs to in that they be chosen by that group or that they be even working for the welfare of that group. The "represent" in my terminology here simply is in the sense of being an example of. In the sitauation I cited above, the candidate will have to choose between being a member of the general population or being a Muslim but not both. We could potentially be involved in a whole rewrite exercise but I fear that we will be in a never ending sequence of discussions. I am quite certain that the matter of forcing a candidate to declare his/hers religious or racial roots will go back to the Supreme Court sooner or later and the Supreme Court will have to rule between two irreconcilable concepts: The constitutional representation of minorities and the right not to divulge one's religious or racial origin for fear of discrimination. The solution I am proposing provides a quick end to this dilemma without increasing the number of elected officials, redrawing voting districts, and/or engaging in a long and protracted debate without satisfying anyone. Sometimes an incremental change is better than no change.