Based on research carried out on what obtains in around 75 countries, I proposed to the Sachs Commission and the Select Committee five measures to remedy women?s political underrepresentation.These proposals are consistent with both the 1995 UN recommendation and the 1997 SADC commitment which set a critical mass of 30 % of women in Parliament. They are also in line with the terms of reference of the Sachs Commission and the Select Committee, especially with regard to keeping the current number of FPTP seats.

They are as follows : i) introduce a dose of 30 PR seats in the current electoral system ; ii) have at least one woman candidate in each of the 20 constituencies; iii) allot the 30 PR seats from Party lists published before polling; iv) provide for Party lists to contain at least one third of female candidates; v) have a narrow ?zipper? so that candidates on Party lists are ranked in a sequence so that at least every third candidate is a woman.

As they are recognized international practices, the electoral experts of the Sachs Commission retained most of the five measures in one way or another. Unfortunately this was not the case for the two reports of the Select Committee, composed of politicians. One proposes that Party Lists be constituted with 6 women in the first 12 candidates out of a total of 30 PR Members of Parliament (MP) while the other does not make any provision for any women presence at all.While six is better than zero, it is largely disproportionate compared to the extent of women?s underrepresentation.Its major drawback is that it does not make any recommendation for gender fairness with respect to the 62 constituency seats, which represent 70 % of all seats.

In a study carried out in Commonwealth countries in 2002, it was found that there are very high costs for women?s representation in FPTP systems.The author concluded as follows:

?The experience of Commonwealth countries supports the thesis that proportional representation ( and mixed) electoral systems are the most favourable for electing women to Parliaments. Those Commonwealth countries that use FPTP electoral system have an average of 11.1 % women. Those that use proportional systems have nearly twice the number of women legislators at 21.3 %. Furthermore,the three Commonwealth countries with the highest number of women (Mozambique, South Africa and New Zealand) use PR electoral systems, all of which use party lists. In SADC, the average of those countries using party list PR is 25 %, which is in stark contrast to those countries with FPTP electoral system where the average representation of women is 11.7 %. Countries which have proportional electoral system, together with party list and quotas, are closer to realising the ideal of 30 % women MP than those countries with FPTP system.?

<B>Use of quotas</B>

The use of quotas is very wide-spread as there is hardly any better alternative to increase the political participation of women. In the specific case of women, quotas do not discriminate but compensate for actual barriers that deny them their fair share of political representation. Thus, quotas have been adopted by countries in Scandinavia and Western Europe with far better democratic credentials and robust provisions against discrimination than Mauritius.They also exist in countries as culturally diverse as Germany and South Africa, economically different as Norway and Mozambique, religiously apart as Costa Rica and India, socially unlike as Burkina Faso and Philippines and politically dissimilar as Belgium and Argentina. Culturally and religiously conservative, Latin America has become ?the continent of women?s quotas? with 20 % in Paraguay, 30 % in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico and 40 % in Costa Rica. South Africa, with a very bitter history of apartheid, where most women were doubly discriminated, has a quota of 30 %.

What is the current state of play in Mauritius ? Anybody familiar with the subject is surprised at the contradictions of some political stakeholders. While all agree that women are sharply underrepresented and all are in favour of changing this trend, most refuse to endorse the only set of remedies that can meaningfully cure this democratic deficit. Such blatant contradictions could give credence to the belief that the rejection of the sound recommendations of Sachs hides a sinister motive to deprive women of their legitimate democratic rights, in spite of the wishy washy lip service to the cause.

Why do they refuse to ?walk the talk? ? I set aside the ?arrogance of ignorance? as the three electoral experts of the Sachs Commission have deliberated at length on this issue and made some universally acceptable recommendations. Furthermore, many institutions like SADC, UN, and specialist bodies in electoral systems can give advice on best practices adopted by other countries to attain gender fairness.

<B>Unproductive</B>

First, it does not help to agree that women should gain greater political representation and to turn down quotas. This is tantamount to someone who enjoys swimming but detests getting wet! Second, it is very unproductive to support the case of ?women in politics? and to refuse the introduction of a good dose of PR in the electoral formula.Third, speaking about greater opportunities for women while rejecting Party List, which is the most effective proven route to raise women?s presence in Parliament, hardly helps to cure the deficit. Fourth, little progress will be made if one recognizes the injustice of the system while not endorsing a ?zipper? formula that guarantees electable places for women. Rumours have it that a humiliating proposal to slip very few women into Parliament through the back door by the creation of another complicated set of best losers is being mooted. Even if such degrading tokenism does not exist any-where and is totally contrary to what exists in SADC countries.Women surely deserve better and ought to be treated on an equal footing to men on Party lists.

Where do the main parties stand on this crucial issue and can they close the chasm between words and deeds ? The MSM has stated that it is against any quota for women and against Party lists. In addition, it proposes a very mild dose of PR (around 10 seats only) in its version of a mixed electoral system.There will be no zipper. Basically all the ingredients to deny women any chance of entering Parliament. Women in that party will have to rely on the goodwill of their leaders to be selected as candidates. Evidence worldwide shows that this method does not produce tangible results. In his Select Committee report, Ivan Collendavelloo indicates his preference for a good dose of PR ( 30 seats) that uses Party Lists and women having a quota of at least 20 % with a broad zipper ( 6 out of the first 12 from a total of 30 PR MP to be women).It basically embraces some of the necessary conditions for a higher number of women MP. However at 6 %, it sets too low a threshold for women. It is not known whether this reflects MMM?s position. One has the feeling that the PM is favourable to a greater presence of women in Parliament even if his method to do it remains a mystery.The Labour Party has, in its submission to the Sachs Commission,recommended that up to 30 % of seats be attributed to women . It also supports Party lists and a good dose of PR ( between 25 and 30 seats).

<B>Almost impossible</B>

Let us be honest. Based on the current attitude of some political stakeholders, the odds of Mauritius having a Parliament with 30 % female in 2005 (a SADC commitment) is extremely long. Almost impossible. Unless public opinion brings significant pressure to bear on decision makers. Whether this is attributable to seats being at a very high premium, thus leading to stiff competition for selection or to a lack of will to ?walk the talk? is another debate.

One practical solution would be to agree on the target of 30 % but to stagger its implementation over a period of ten years, spanning three elections, starting with 20 % in 2005, rising to 25 % in 2010 and reaching 30 % in 2015. Coupled with the introduction of a good dose of PR, the adoption of Party Lists and a narrow zipper.This appears a fair solution in the present context. Will it be accepted by the political stakeholders or will the huge gap between rhetoric and actions remain ?

Will women?s representation be merely token or will it be on the way to a critical mass ? The jury is still out, even if the odds are stacked against women with some political leaders reluctant to put their money where their mouth is.