Introduction

With discussions on potential electoral reform initiated by the Deputy Prime Minister, I want to explore ways in which we can ensure democratic representation for the various groups that constitute Mauritius’ pluralistic social makeup. This article will outline some of the principles that should underpin these reforms, using the ideas of political philosopher John Rawls, particularly through his seminal work Political Liberalism. Our Constitution recognizes the importance of representation by embedding the Best Loser System (BLS) as a corrective measure to the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system to guarantee plural representation and minimise the risks of exclusion.

Despite its criticisms, the BLS is a working mechanism that has ensured stability and representation since its introduction. The questions surrounding the BLS today are essentially two-fold: (i) whether it should be modified to comply with Mauritius’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and (ii) whether the BLS entrenches and institutionalises ethnic and religious divisions and should be scrapped altogether. This brings us to the central question of this piece: how do we design an electoral framework that simultaneously secures representation for Mauritius’ plural society without forcing citizens to declare themselves into rigid and arbitrary groups?

A Political Liberalism Perspective

From a Rawlsian political liberalism perspective, the design must be founded on three core principles:

The Overlapping Consensus: there must be an overlapping consensus which all citizens reasonably accept, regardless of their ethnic, cultural, religious and/or political affiliations;

Fair Value: each citizen’s political liberties and rights must not only be equal formally but also in practice; and

Difference Principle: it must ensure that the inevitable inequalities created by electoral rules are arranged in such a way that it protects the least advantaged within the system and not disadvantage them.

In the current FPTP system, formal equality exists in that all citizens can both vote and stand for election. However, the FPTP on its own lacks Fair Value because, due to demographic and/or geographic distribution, certain groups can be, in practice, excluded from Parliament. And in that sense, the BLS corrects the FPTP by ascribing Fair Value of political liberties for groups that could otherwise be marginalized by the FPTP system.

Furthermore, the FPTP, on its own, also tends to exaggerate larger demographics and disadvantage smaller ones, thus going against the Difference Principle. BLS corrects this by giving additional representation to those who would otherwise be left out. However, requiring candidates to declare their communal identity conflicts with Rawlsian political liberalism because individuals are no longer free to participate but must confine themselves to rigidly defined categories. This undermines the BLS because it can no longer be justified through public reason, that is, it is difficult for it to be accepted by reasonable citizens regardless of their particular identity.

Division or Recognition of Plural Identity

One stark and recurrent criticism of the BLS is that it institutionalizes ethnic and communal divisions. Whether it does entrench divisions or instead recognizes the plural make-up of the Mauritian people is a debate for another day. That said, it is worth pointing out that the State already formally recognises different groups in other domains such as the allocation of public holidays, the legislations setting up various cultural centers, and subsidies to religious and cultural associations. It does seem inconsistent that groups that are formally recognized as part of the nation in terms of culture and religion are denied recognition when it comes to political representation. From a political liberalism perspective, this weakens and delegitimises democratic inclusion.

In the last 2024 General Elections, the outgoing MSM government had no Sino-Mauritian candidates. Had the MSM won, it would have legally excluded an entire constitutionally recognized community from the political and democratic process. While this never came to pass, it does demonstrate the vulnerability of the system that exclusion is not only theoretical but a real possibility. In such a case, the BLS would have corrected this by ascribing fair value under the FPTP and had the MSM won outright, the BLS would have ensured that Sino-Mauritians are represented in Parliament, but this protection does not extend to the other groups that the State recognizes in law and practice because they do not appear in the BLS’s four categories and their potential exclusion would not have been corrected.

From a Rawlsian perspective, this means that the Fair Value of political rights and liberties is selectively applied, and this may undermine the legitimacy of the system and deny representation to constitutive groups of the nation.

Towards a Rules-Based System

One of the fundamental principles in Rawls’ framework is the Overlapping Consensus, that is, institutions, and political mechanisms must be supported across all citizens and communities rather than just be tolerated as a compromise. The BLS, so far, has been this pragmatic compromise but is becoming increasingly fragile.

Given the problems with the BLS, the aim of a reform should be to keep the protective logic of the BLS through a framework that ensures plural representation but without requiring individuals to categorise themselves to stand as candidates. This means that a solution would maintain or recreate a categorization akin to the BLS. However, the premise is that it would simply align with categories that the State already formally recognizes in religious, cultural and social life. This categorization is more likely to benefit from an Overlapping Consensus than forced compromise.

Secondly, the solution would shift the responsibility away from individuals and on to the political parties themselves, requiring them to structure their party lists (both FPTP and proportional lists) to ensure representation based on (i) gender and (ii) the plural composition set out above. Again, this is likely to have greater chance of building legitimacy since it could be defended in terms that are acceptable to every Mauritian citizen by ensuring fair participation in the democratic process.

A question that might be asked is whether an updated census is needed to determine the proportion of representation for each group. Except for gender, where a preset percentage is justified, I do not believe this is necessary for other categories.

It is not necessary that representation mirrors population percentages for Fair Value to work. What is important is that no group recognized in law and practice is structurally excluded from representation in Parliament. Similarly, the Difference Principle is satisfied not through the allocation of seats based on population size but by ensuring that groups that would otherwise be excluded are guaranteed presence in Parliament.

Recognition and representation in a plural democracy should be understood as qualitative rather than quantitative.

Conclusion

Representation and a fair chance at participation in democratic process are a cornerstone of democracy, and even more so in a pluralistic democratic society like Mauritius. While the Best Loser System has acted as a corrective measure to ensure representation of minorities, its mechanism does not align with political liberalism because it does not treat citizens equally but instead forces them into categories.

At the same time, the example of the 2024 General Elections shows how fragile and important it is to give fair value to representation. A rules-based approach that reflects both gender representation and the diversity already recognized in national culture can create the Overlapping Consensus needed for an alternative to the BLS. This would ensure that political rights and liberties are given their Fair Value and strengthen inclusive democracy in Mauritius.

****** 

Bio data

Sandiren Reddi holds an LLB (Hons) from the London School of Economics, an MA in Politics and Critical Theory from the University of Nottingham, and a Postgraduate Diploma in Economics for Competition Law from King’s College London. Based in Mauritius, he has over 18 years of experience in network industries and digital platforms, specialising in regulatory frameworks, competition policy, and market structuring across telecommunications, energy, and infrastructure utilities. He is currently Partner and Consultant at a Bahrain-based boutique advisory firm focused on regulation of network industries and digital platforms, and serves as Vice Chairperson of the Competition Commission of Mauritius.