A desirable and overdue deliverable of the upcoming national elections is to increase the number of female parliamentarians. This can be more significantly achieved, surprisingly not through a radical reform such as proportional representation (PR), but rather via the two traditional party alliances fielding at least one female candidate in each constituency, as inferred by the specificities of historical voting patterns.

Recently, the prime minister has hinted that there will be no change in the electoral system, at least for the forthcoming elections, in view of the disagreement on the PR format between the two partners in the governing coalition. Whereas the major benefit of PR, especially the compensatory format, is to allocate seats more or less equitably among parties based on their share of votes, it does not necessarily engender better female representation.

Suppose (a) there are 30 PR seats (b) half of the party list candidates are women and (c) no woman is elected in any constituency. This will result in 15 women in an enlarged cohort of 90 elects in Mauritius (ignoring best losers throughout this article) or about 16.7 % female presence. Even if we incorporate a historical average of 3 women constituency elects, we are looking at about 18 women out of 90 or about 20 % female representation.

In our Block Vote system in Mauritius, a voter can select any 3 constituency candidates but often selects 3 candidates from the same party. With 2 major party alliances competing, the seat outcome in each constituency has either been 3-0 or 2-1.

A 3-0 outcome guarantees at least one woman elect. In 1982 and 1995, when the winning alliance swept all the mainland constituencies 3-0, there would have been at least 20 women or about 33.3 % membership in our National Assembly, thereby satisfying SADC threshold on female representation in the governance of the land.

A 2-1 score does not guarantee a woman elect especially in the worst case that a woman always ranks third against her two male party running mates. Historically, over the past eight elections encompassing 60 constituency battles in Mauritius, 32 ended 3-0 while the remaining 28 ended 2-1. Historically therefore, the probability of no woman elect on account of a nightmare scenario of all 20 constituency outcomes ending 2-1 is negligible.

Assuming that each major alliance fielded 1 woman candidate in each constituency, female representation in our National Assembly would have been 33.3 % in 1967, 16.7% in 1976, 33.3 % in 1982, 30 % in 1983, 23.3% in 1987, 26.7 % in 1991, 33.3 % in 1995 and 23.3 % in 2000. This 27.5 % average would have leapfrogged way above the saddening 5 % average representation realized by women in the National Assembly.

The limitation of PR to enhance female representation without each major alliance endeavouring to list at least one woman candidate in each constituency has already been exposed above. I will now turn to an alternative electoral system that I have analysed at length in the past years and which, I believe, is the most apt at smoothing out the shortcomings of our current electoral outcomes.

Our Block Vote system has specificities unique to Mauritius. It cannot, for example, be compared directly to single-seat First Past the Post constituency regimes. If voters cast their 3 votes for the best candidates and not en-bloc to a party slate, they could have produced “arc-en-ciel” outcomes with regard to seat allocation, communal and gender representation.

One minimal but hugely effective way to counter the en-bloc votes for a single party is to adopt a “Vote 3, Elect 4” electoral system. Empirically for the past 8 elections, it would have allocated seats as equitably as compensatory PR, while not calling for any change in our voting procedure. Furthermore, it would have guaranteed at least 25 % Opposition presence in the National Assembly, thereby guarding against the whimsy and controversial amendments to the Constitution, that we have witnessed.

In addition, a “Vote 3, Elect 4” electoral system coupled with each major alliance fielding 1 woman candidate in each constituency would have resulted in an average 23 % female representation in the National Assembly. Though this is a lower percentage compared to Block Vote but higher vis-a-vis the PR format, it needs to be assessed together with its other concurrent benefits such as a more balanced National Assembly in terms of party and community representation.

The question now is whether there are enough women to stand up as candidates. My answer is unequivocally YES ! While vacationing in my hometown of Vacoas this past December, I had the opportunity to hear our newest Minister, Ms Dookun Luchoomun, at her party rally. I am confident that there many more women of such calibre within the ranks of the civil service, private and education sectors and civic organizations.

Women who have stood as constituency candidates have often been formidable campaigners. Ms Dookun Luchoomun topped the vote count in La Caverne Phoenix in 2000. So did Ms Thacoor Sidhaya (Port Louis North – Montagne Longue in 1995), Ms Joceline Minerve (Beau Bassin-Petite Riviere in 1995) and Ms Sheila Bappoo (Savanne-Black River in 1983 and Vacoas-Floréal in 1991).

There is no need to fear the frays of an electoral campaign. Passion and the will to serve the motherland overcome all obstacles, real or virtual. Women may actually be better campaigners and political leaders by nature. Think of icons such as Indira Gandhi now emulated by her daughter-in-law Sonia, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in Sri Lanka, Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Helen Clark in New Zealand.

Enhancing female representation in our National Assembly rests not on a change in our electoral system but more critically through women stamping their just rights on at least one party ticket in each constituency in Mauritius: You must participate to win !

<B>by Professor Singfat CHU</B>