Against communalism of the best-loser system - Lalit Mauritius

communities. The Constitution does not cater for a situation where candidates wish to stand for
election, but reject the best loser system.”
Schedule that perverts the Constitution itself
The Constitution itself, as Justice Seetulsingh pointed out, makes no mention of so-called
“community”. Drafted by Mr. de Smith, the Constitution itself, was, at the time of its drafting, a
modern democratic document. However, the addition of “Schedule One” introduced the concept
of dividing the nation and of classifying all candidates.
This leads to a perversion of democracy. The communal classification of candidates
unfortunately undermines the whole of the electoral exercise, as we shall see, not just the
“exercise of the best loser nominations” as many people think.
The communal classification in Schedule One has became completely obsolete with the advent
of a Republic. While we were “subjects of the Queen”, it was feasible if evil for us to be divided
into ethno-religious tribes, but once we became “citizens of a Republic” in 1992, the very
concept of dividing us into categories of citizens became absurd, as well as bad.
Imagine for a minute if all the 20 Lalit and Nouvo Lizour candidates who were brought before
the Supreme Court for re-classification had subsequently actually been elected. We have to
imagine this, because the Constitution cannot make electoral laws which do not cater for
victory.
We must bear in mind that the Applicant, Mr. Parvez Carrimkhan had said that “wrongful
declarations [as to the community the candidates are members of] will upset the proper
allocation of the best loser seats after the proclamation of the results of the general elections”
(quoted from Judgement, bold is ours).
After a public hearing in open court, in order to determine whether or not to “correct” the
“community” which Lalit and Nouvo Lizour candidates had filled it in on Nomination Papers,
the 20 candidates were formally “reclassified” by Justice D.B.Seetulsingh, a Judge of the
Supreme Court on Friday, 8 th September.
They were all classified under the Constitution, and without appeal, as being “members” of the
“G…P…” and the Returning Officers of the relevant constituencies were instructed to delete
what was already on their Nomination Papers and replace it with G….P…, unless it already said
that by the drawing of lots.
Later we will come back to this.
Acclaim
The judgment, meanwhile, has been widely acclaimed for the wise comments it includes,
especially those which criticize communal classification and show its shortcomings. Lalit has
also acclaimed the judgment. There were fine articles on the judgment in Le Mauricien (9 th
September), News on Sunday(10 th September), L’Express (10 th September) and Week-End (10 th
September).
In this article, and so as to show the impasse that ethno-religious classification now finds itself
in, we would like to touch on some of the difficulties that arise as a result of the communal
classification by Schedule One. The Schedule says: “For the purpose of this Schedule, the
population of Mauritius shall be regarded as including a Hindu community, a Muslim
communlty and a Sino-Mauritian community, and every person who does not appear, from his
way of life, to belong to one or other of those 3 communities shall be regarded as belonging to
the General Population, which shall itself be regarded as a fourth community.” (In our article
we will continue, as part of the protest against this type of classification, by referring to these
so-called communities by their initials only.)
The so-called “G…P…”, although being what the judgement refers to as a “residual
community”, is nevertheless entitled under the Schedule to the Constitution, to seats under the
“Best Loser” system. This contradiction means that the judgement, rather fortunately, poses
grave problems for the continuation of this communal system.
Aware of these grave problems, and in order to try to cushion the effects of communal reclassification,
Justice Seetulsingh in his judgement says: “I also find that the undertaking that
they [Lalit and Nouvo Lizour candidates] have given not to participate in the allocation of best
loser seats, should they be entitled to do so, is binding upon them and I recommend that the
Electoral Supervisory Commission should take into account this undertaking if there is any
dispute as to the allocation of best loser seats”. These findings are despite the fact that earlier in
the Judgment, we read: “the Electoral Supervisory Commission has not agreed that the 2 parties