DEBATE: Electoral Reform fever

Mauritius has been suffering for the past few months from a severe spell of electoral reform fever. Everyone is talking about it at home and even overseas.
Every member of every community has every right to lobby for his or her own community, especially in Parliament, as highlighted by Harish Boodhoo that “chaque jacot protège so montagne.” Harish Boodhoo, in this simple statement of fact, defines the mental-make-up and political inclination of the nation when it comes to the concern of one own's interests. No amount of denial from anyone will not wipe out this truth, which is almost an axiom--a self-evident truth that demands no proof.
We say again that the word communalism should not be given a bad name. But as a matter of fact what is the meaning of the word itself that strikes terror in the hearts of so many Mauritians? To begin with, it is a word that cannot be found in any dictionary except perhaps in Hookoomsing/Baker's Creole dictionary? From where does that word come? What is its origin in terms of being racist or sectarian?
The more we analyse this word the more we can't find it to be totally wrong especially when it indicates a necessity to be 'solidaire' to protect oneself against domination and exploitation. This may give rise to the wrong idea that being concerned about one own community's welfare and advancement is a form of communalism. In that respect, all Mauritians are communalists, but not necessarily in any bad sense. On the other hand, only those who practise favouritism in whatever form should be chastised.
In fact, the Mauritian word communalism may find its root in the 1950s/1960s groundless fear of domination/hegemony that was instilled in the mind of the nation to fight independence of the island. It was coined by one section of the community, especially by political leaders, to denigrate and expose the alleged clannish mentality of another section of the community. Another word associated with communalism was 'koonism', coined the same way. Communalism was coined to create fear in the mind of the nation, and is probably still being used for the same purpose.
However, it was that fear of that hegemony that every community needed safeguard to protect their rights. Safeguard was essential at the time of independence in 1968, and the same safeguard is essential in 2012. The population is still made up of Indo-Mauritians (Hindus and Muslims), Creoles, Sino-Mauritians, Franco-Mauritians, not much has changed. Are we all communalists for that matter?
The same safeguard is demanded by every section of the Mauritian community as embodied in the Constitution of the country. This Constitution was not obtained on a plate or at the drop of a hat. It was given to Mauritius after protracted negotiations extending over several years involving all the political parties under the leadership SSR. SSR put his reputation on line for this Constitution as a package to the independence of Mauritius. SSR is to this day blamed for the Chagos excision that was allegedly agreed during the constitutional talks in London.
We can sympathise with members of the Muslim community who understand the importance of the guarantee provided by the much denigrated Best Loser System embodied in the Constitution. They understand that what they have was fought for by the first leader of the CAM, Sir Abdul Razack Mohamed (SARM). SARM was denied the same guarantee by former political friends. He found a soul mate in SSR and he gave his party's support to the independence movement. Had he, as leader of a minority, refused to trust SSR and turned the other way, independence could have been denied in the 1960s, and delayed for many years at a time of serious racial tension in the country. It is a great tribute to SARM's memory that on the stèle at Place d'Armes dedicated to him, we read his historical declaration:
Independence is historically
Inevitable and it will unlock
The potential of our nation
Let us not therefore  oppose
It but make a virtue
And
A success of it.
The constitutional reform must be done to safeguard the interests of the different races (human of course) making up the Mauritian nation. It should not be for the benefit of politicians in the race to the National Assembly. The practice of First Past the Post is considered unfair, the politicians want even those who never make it to the finishing line to enter the Assembly, though perhaps 'écumés' and even crawling up the steps, or gasping with their hands grasping their sides. Should the Constitution be reformed to please politicians or the people?
It is good to learn that here in the UK one of the Olympic Games' leitmotifs will be to celebrate the diversity of Great Britain. Instead of celebrating diversity in Mauritius they want to push it under the carpet. One wonders as to how will they ever be able to implement the Equality legislation if the ethnicity of the nation already causes the country so much headache. Ethnic monitoring is the most important ingredient in the application of any equal opportunities policy. We can sort of foresee the South Indians (Tamils and Telegus) wanting to be identified as such. As regards the North Indians, the Marathis, the Gujuratis, the Singhs etc may want to stand up and be counted. It's probably better to leave the lid on this can of worms.