Against communalism of the best-loser system - Lalit Mauritius

a political compromise between the most reactionary demands and the more progressive ones at
the time.
We got a democratic parliamentary system a l'anglaise. At least, it seems so. Sixty- two
members of parliament are elected on the principle of first-past-the-post. Political parties were
expected to attract votes on the basis of a programme for the government of the country. The
electorate, irrespective of the communal identity of the voters and the candidates, were to vote
candidates whose programmes they supported.
Power would then vest in the party or alliance with the majority of seats in parliament to govern
the country and not to represent communal interests. Political parties themselves were not
expected, as for example the CAM did, to present themselves as the defenders of a particular
community or of a religion. On the contrary, political parties were and are expected to
contribute in a major way to the development of a Mauritian identity in opposition to communal
identity. Political parties, according to the expectations of the Banwell Commission, were
expected in fact to combat communal political and electoral practice.
The best loser scheme which was grafted to our electoral system, appeared to be a minor part
which was not supposed to unduly affect the democratic nature and the unitary tendencies of our
society. It was understood as a temporary measure to reassure “minorities” and the logic was
that “in time” there would be no need for “reassurance” as all political parties would be striving
to represent citizens' interests and not the interests of communal or religious groups.
Time did not and has not yet abolished the best loser system's perversion of the will of the
electorate. Nor did the political parties show themselves as reliable instruments that will
contribute to the decrease of communal consciousness. On the contrary. The advent of
independence in 1968 and its aftermath witnessed the hideous spectacle of communalism on the
rampage, inflicting severe distortions to the reality of the political struggles of the time with
such an impact that the marks are still with us nearly thirty years later.
A government committed to usher in independence was elected with the votes of the majority of
citizens. An Opposition opposed to independence (for a short while) was elected with the votes
of a substantial minority. Democratic appearances were saved but the electoral campaign
preceding the polls had a large content of communal propaganda. The electorate was
communally divided to a significant degree and the divide between government and opposition
was largely perceived as a communal one. This occurred in 1967. Since then have been.
Political parties and individual candidates alike are keen to increase their chances of getting
elected or... appointed to the National Assembly. They have to offer a programme and/or a list
of electoral promises which are expected to meet the needs and demands of the electorate. In the
pursuit of electoral victory, communal politics appeared as one of the means to maximise their
chances. Instead of contributing to the decrease of communal consciousness, they preferred to
intensify and exploit communal identity. They posed and still pose as champions of modern
parliamentary democracy in a secular State whilst at the same time projecting themselves as
guardians of communal and religious interests.
Once in government, or in opposition, the necessity and the means to maintain such a role
increase dramatically. Coupled with political clientelism, political communalism pervades
public life. Political and administrative decisions are regularly tainted with if not totally soaked
in the poison of communalism. This in turn reinforces communal consciousness and political
life as a whole becomes utterly perverted.
Conclusion
It would be futile to expect leaders of political parties which profit from communal electoral
strategies and which practise communal politics to do away with the best-loser system unless
they are under intense pressure from a mass movement which demands its abolition. Such a
mass movement existed in 1982 in the wake of the formidable victory of the MMM-PSM
alliance. Times have since changed, and not for the better.
In 1982 the electorate itself developed its own anti-communal consciousness. So much so that
even the Electoral Commission declared that the best-loser had become obsolete. Some
politicians found then that the best loser system could not be eliminated because it did not figure
in their manifesto. The pretext was a thin one. The political consequences of this failure to do
away with the division of our people and their political representatives into communal
categories are heavy and to-day we have to endure them in a dramatic way when we anxiously
watch how our whole educational system has become the arena where support for and
opposition to governmental policy are characterised by their distinct communal alignment.