Electoral reform has haunted Mauritius for decades. Each commission, from Banwell to Sachs to Carcassonne, has promised a new formula to reconcile diversity with democracy. Yet the country still votes under a First Past the Post (FPTP) system that ma- gnifies distortions between ballots cast and seats won. At stake is not just arithmetic, but the legitimacy of government in a plural society.

Dr. Rama Sithanen’s 2012 report cut through the noise with one central message: reform must correct inequities without destroying what has worked. FPTP, he argued, has provided stability, accountability and broad inclusion. But it also carries a fatal flaw: the “winner-takes-all” effect. A party can secure every seat with just over 50% of the vote, leaving nearly half the electorate without representation.

The Carcassonne Fault Line

The Carcassonne report sought to scrap FPTP entirely, replacing it with a Spain-style proportional representation (PR) system. All MPs would be drawn from closed party lists, with redrawn constituencies and an end to individual accountability to voters. Sithanen warned this was too radical a departure for Mauritius, a society that values the link between MPs and their constituents. Spain, he reminded, is relatively homogeneous; Mauritius is not. Importing a formula “off the peg” risks transplant rejection.

Carcassonne’s model, he noted, would weaken voter power, hand candidate selection to party elites, and risk chronic instability. Simulations suggested no clear majority would emerge, opening the door to fragile coalitions and king-making by small parties. “Representative government must not only represent,” Sithanen wrote. “It must also govern.”

Six Core

Values Sithanen offered six criteria to judge any system: stability, fairness, socio-demographic inclusion, gender representation, accountability, and discouragement of communal parties. FPTP performs well on many of these, except fairness. Reform, he argued, should cure that distortion without undermining stability.

On gender, the problem was less the system than the parties. Between 1967 and 2010, women made up barely 6% of candidates. Yet when nominated, they often won. The fix was straightforward: no more than two candidates of the same sex per constituency, plus a “zipper” rule for party lists. Political will, not constitutional surgery, was the missing ingredient.

The Best Loser Question

Perhaps the most sensitive debate concerns the Best Loser System (BLS), long criticized as anachronistic and communal. Sithanen’s analysis showed its actual impact was limited: most ethnic groups had been represented through normal FPTP results. He proposed folding its objectives into a mixed system — preserving inclusion without enshrining communal categories in the Constitution.

His compromise was pragmatic. Keep three-member constituencies and current boundaries. Add 20 proportional seats filled through closed party lists, based on the “unreturned votes” of losing candidates. This would expand Parliament to 82 seats, narrow distortions, and guarantee stability. Unlike pure PR, the winner would still emerge with a workable majority. Unlike pure FPTP, minority voices would not vanish.

Less Imperfect

No system is perfect, Sithanen conceded. The aim is one “significantly less imperfect” than the status quo. His hybrid formula would bring fairness to opposition parties often suffocated under FPTP landslides, while preserving decisive government. It would also modernize representation without importing Spain’s instability or perpetuating the BLS’s communal arithmetic.

A Historic Compromise?

The timing, in 2012, seemed ripe. “Never has the country been so close to reaching an agreement,” Sithanen wrote. The challenge was not technical but political: would leaders and citizens make the historic compromises needed to move beyond mistrust?

Thirteen years later, the same questions loom. Electoral reform remains the graveyard of Mauritian consensus, forever studied and forever shelved. Yet the logic of Sithanen’s roadmap endures. Reformers do not need to reinvent the wheel; they need only to adopt a balanced hybrid that the country already debated, tested and refined.

The lesson is clear. Radical surgery risks destabilizing a system that has delivered peace and growth. Cosmetic tinkering, meanwhile, perpetuates distortions that breed cynicism. The way forward lies in the middle: keep the FPTP baby, discard its bathwater, and embrace a measured dose of proportionality.

Mauritius has prided itself on compromise in a divided world. Electoral reform demands nothing less — a formula that reflects its rainbow nation without dimming its ability to govern.