The day Prime minister Navin Ramgoolam meets up with leader of the opposition Paul Bérenger and Mouvement socialiste militant (MSM) leader Pravind Jugnauth is the day that Rama Sithanen, minister of Finance, writes in an article published in l?express yesterday, that he thinks the prospects for the electoral reform ?are doomed.? Why is Rama Sithanen, an expert in electoral systems, so piqued?

The article authored by Rama Sithanen spoke at length of his proposals for the reform and ends with a statement that speaks volume about how discussions on electoral reform with the Prime minister have been going. ?My experience and findings as a researcher of over 200 voting formulae across the world show that under these circumstances (the author is presumably referring to his own party?s stand as well as that of other political parties), the prospects for electoral reform are unfortunately doomed. I sincerely hope I am wrong. We shall see.?

Earlier in his article, Sithanen writes while explaining his suggestions for the reform ? a pre-determined party list that would take care of representation of minority group members and women as well as adequate party representation and 62 candidates to be elected by the First Past the Post (FPTP) system ? ?but obviously some persist in believing that they are smarter than others and want to take a partisan advantage of the electoral reform?.

Exactly who are the ?some? and exactly what brought about Sithanen?s lashing out, is not clear. What is clear on the other hand is the fact that, despite Ramgoolam?s reluctance to make public discussions ? even at his press conference on Tuesday, the PM refused to get into the nitty-gritty of discussions ? Rama Sithanen went right ahead and gave indications of what he has proposed in a document Navin Ramgoolam refused to disclose in Parliament when asked by Paul Bérenger.

But Sithanen doesn?t stop at ?indications? ? he volunteers his opinion that the prospects for electoral reform are ?doomed?. Logic deduction suggests that somewhere, on some important issue, there has been ? or there is ? a disagreement between the PM and his ?expert? on electoral systems. If it?s not clear why that is, Pravind Jugnauth and the Prime minister himself might however have inadvertently ? or not ? given some indication on the tiff between Sithanen and Ramgoolam.

In a statement to the press as he was coming out of his meeting with Navin Ramgoolam, Pravind Jugnauth let out that he was ?happy? that whatever has been said publicly so far regarding the electoral reform ?was Rama Sithanen?s stand and not that of government.?

Questioned later on this rather strange ? if interesting comment ? Navin Ramgoolam concurred: ?There has been some confusion regarding this. What has been published is part of Rama Sithanen?s thesis on electoral reform and the thesis deals with electoral systems in general and is not necessarily adapted to the realities in Mauritius. (?) We have used this document as a working document and Sithanen, Sarat Lallah and myself have worked on some proposals when we deponed for the Sachs Commission?, he said.

So Sithanen?s stand is not ?necessarily? that of government. Would this explain the finance minister?s article in yesterday?s paper? In the meantime, Ramgoolam himself gives another hint that things are not as smooth as his relaxed demeanour and Pravind Jugnauth?s smiling face might have otherwise suggested.

<B>?Diversity and inclusion without BLS?</B>

Soon after meeting with Jugnauth, the Prime minister reminded the press that he had already said before that he didn?t think there would be ?complete consensus? in the matter. Ramgoolam also added:?Discussions might take longer than we initially thought?, hinting that the three main political parties? stands might be somewhat irreconcilable.

The main problem seems to be the Best Loser System (BLS). Navin Ramgoolam reiterated on Tuesday that he would not go ahead with the abolition of the BLS if this made people unhappy. Or scared rather.

Rama Sithanen insists in his article. ?Diversity and inclusion can be ensured without the BLS?, depending on political parties? willingness to take into consideration the ?plurality? of ?the rainbow nation.?

Is this then, the bone of contention? Or does it run deeper?