The formula retained by the government concerning proportional representation is far from the real reform of our electoral system that was expected. Although Albie Sachs and Ivan Collendavelloo, in their reports, had both said that this ?extended best loser system? would not correct the injustice of the present system, the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) has decided to make a ?major concession? to its partner, the MSM. The ?fairer, more democratic and more representative electoral system?, supported by Ivan Collendavelloo, has misfired and a golden opportunity seems lost for the country.

The buoyant MMM secretary general has not hidden his disappointment and dissatisfaction. ?If the aim is to put an end to the injustice of the present system by introducing a part of proportionality, the only formula that should be applied is the one proposed by the Sachs Commission. If the aim is simply to add some MPs who were not elected at the National Assembly, it is the last formula retained that should be applied.?

For once, we see a majority MP and an opposition member fully agreed. Rama Sithanen, Labour member and author of a report on proportional representation, claims that this formula is ?the worst of the worst of Sachs? proposals.? Actually, among the five proposals, Albie Sachs admitted that Emmanuel Leung Shing?s alternative formula would not help reduce the problems of the present system.

Instead of bringing a dose of proportional that would make the number of party seats better reflect the proportion of party votes, the government is merely advocating an extended best loser system, which will not correct any injustice.

The National Assembly will have, instead of four best losers in the present system, twelve (of whom half will be women - the only positive aspect - and people from communities less represented in Parliament.) But although ?no prejudice is to be caused to the existing best loser system?, it was out of the question to extend it since best losers are still losers. And it looks odd to see so many losers in Parliament.

This proposal has nothing to do with the Sachs formula, supported by the Collendavelloo report, aimed at introducing a certain amount of proportionality in the electoral system. They both recommended 30 additional seats based on proportional representation, highlighting that fewer seats would be insignificant and would not be worth it.

Moreover, Albie Sachs described the Leung Shing formula as having ?a capacity to impact negatively on inter party relationships and to produce results which would intensify rather than reduce communal tensions.? Party candidates could indeed fight for a best loser seat and lead a personal campaign with no consideration for their party.

Paul Bérenger seems to have forgotten some of his ideals since he became prime minister. One would have expected him to fight to promote Collendavelloo?s proposal; he has preferred to make a ?major concession? to the detriment of the population.

He may have wanted to dispel the rumours and show that there is consensus within the government. He may also have tried to prove that he is not the tyrant that most of his opponents say he is and can make concessions, when needed. However, it would have been more glorifying for him to do it for the population rather than for his own political glory. Is our only hope the fact that Collendavelloo has expressed the wish that ?there will be a free vote in Parliament to allow each MP to express his own views on such an important issue.?