The government?s proposal to introduce 14 additional seats in Parliament under the best loser system, of which seven would be allotted to women, has met general outcry, not only from the opposition but also from women in general.

The government qualifies this amendment as the positive discrimination necessary to increase the number of women in Parliament. It should also fulfil its commitment to the Southern African Development Community.

The main problem is that it is an extension of the best loser system, which is already seen as unfair at present as it is based on ethnic representation. As could be expected, the opposition has vigorously condemned the amendment. Opposition leader Navin Ramgoolam seized the opportunity of a Labour women?s rally on Sunday to say how ?humiliating? this proposal was for women. ?They will enter the National assembly as losers.? He has also promised to reform the electoral system for a better representation of women and to implement an Equal Opportunity Act to abolish gender discrimination.

Second-class citizens

According to Rama Sithanen, a member of the Labour party and researcher on electoral systems, ?there are two lethal flaws, eight major defects and two technical problems with the proposals contained in the bill.? He asserts that the amendment is no real solution to the injustice of the First Past the Post system. It won?t reduce the disproportion between votes polled and seats obtained by parties. This system would be most unfair to women, as it would guarantee them only 8% of seats in Parliament.

Sheila Bappoo, the president of the Labour women?s league, has not minced her words and asks for the withdrawal of the amendment. As a woman, she said she feels insulted. ?This arbitrary and reactionary decision constitutes an insult and a humiliation for women. The MMM-MSM gives little importance to the entrance of women in the National Assembly. They seem to consider women as second-class citizens.?

Lindsey Collen, member of Lalit, has also flown off the handle at the government?s proposal. Her party has always decried the best loser system and consciously registered its candidates under assumed communities since it considered that the ethnic bias of the system is highly discriminatory. Should this system be extended to women, it?s not worth saying how unacceptable it sounds.

But she does not seem to be the only one ? especially among women ? to have been shocked. Some women from civil society, who have always fervently defended the cause of women, have formed an association, FederAction.

Their aim is not only to oppose this amendment but also to do their best to have a higher number of women in Parliament ? more than the present 4% but also more than the 8%, which is being considered by the government. According to FederAction, the ?ambiguities? and ?contradictions? in the amendment should be replaced by an amendment to the Representation of People?s Act that would force all parties to have at least 30% women candidates.

Maintain pressure

Asked if the proposal doesn?t constitute a first step towards more women in Parliament, Nita Deerpalsing of FederAction is adamant. ?If we give in now, we will never go ahead (?) I do not prefer to have only four women in Parliament but, at least, the pressure would still be there; they?ll have to listen to what we have to say.? The movement has organised a procession on 28th March against women?s discrimination and has invited all Mauritians to join.

On the government?s side, both men and women seem to support this proposal. The two women ministers within the government even said that it is an important step towards the inclusion of women in politics. It is however, known that the two partners in the government have conflicting views on proportional representation.

It is a pity that the government has left electoral reform by the wayside for so long and now comes up with a hasty proposal a few weeks before the dissolution of Parliament. Is it a question of giving the impression of wishing to have more women in Parliament or is it meant to give women their real place in politics and decision-making?

However, the prime minister insisted that he would not go further with his proposal if the opposition showed signs of dissatisfaction. Now that it is known that both the opposition and women within civil society are dead against this project, the government will most probably back-pedal?

The debate might end with each side blaming the other on an issue that in fact needs a real debate where the first concerned ? women ? are allowed to voice their views and aspirations.