ELECTORAL REFORM: Unmasking Scientific Communalism

Allow me at the very outset to vent off my profound disgust at the proposition that the Muslim 'community' would be offended by the removal of the best loser system under any circumstances. In what follows I shall be expressing myself as a young Muslim citizen of Mauritius. That the feeling of the Muslims was first publicly propounded by a non Muslim opposition leader is outrageous to me on several counts.
The Imagined Community!
Firstly, the term used to describe Muslims as 'community' by someone who apparently has been a pioneer of Mauricianism is insulting. The term is purposely used to confine Muslims, of all backgrounds, into a monolithic retrograde group, immune to progress and modernity contrary to all others who are spearheading reforms and progress. Well, know that, considering the diverging loyalties to political parties, castes, religious affiliations, social status and Masonic lodges, Muslims exist as anything but a community. The alternate discourse on Muslims as a 'community' and others as 'citizens' is a fiction of someone's imagination, ever so obsessed by the colonial nostalgia of divide and rule. After four decades of 'ene sel lepep' mantra, this proposition reveals the double discourse of proto nationalist politicians whose practice, in private, has consistently been scientific communalism.
Secondly, the event cast the image of a decapitated 'community' who does not have a leader, across the house, who is able or willing to relay the concern of the community to the PM. Hence the rise of the opposition leader as the 'Defender of the faithful', against the onslaught of secular liberals, if not outrightly Islamophobic quarters. The implicit bargain here is that, in return for the heroic courage of the opposition leader, Muslims must in return show electoral gratitude and support for their newfound messiah in his remake of any new winning formula. The basic issue here is: Do Muslims need a Community leader? My answer to that is a definitive 'No'. They do, however, desperately need spokespersons.
What is at stake?
Some spokespersons however are completely off-track. Considering the Best Loser as 'blind conservatism' they miss the essential. There is more to the Best Loser (BL) than what meets the eye. Oblivious of the historical legacy of realpolitik whose ramification in terms of voting patterns and civil service appointments is still largely felt, they simply play the game of 'for or against' and opt for the latter. Muslims know that 82% of Muslim MP's were not BL candidates. They equally know that those who benefitted the most from this system are the General population candidates. Yet, why do they feel so strongly about the BL? It boils down their collective memory and the apprehension of being duped -again- by utopian ideals and blind trust in the 'other'. Muslims do not fear, nor do they need protection. They are simply alert.
The failure of Republican Ideals and Mauricianism
The shock of the Muslims in the 1948 elections after four decades of united struggle with all indo-Mauritians was the first eye opener. Not a single Muslim candidate was elected! Since then and until now, not a single Muslim has been elected in the constituency of Pamplemousses after 40 years of independence. The appeal of Alex Bhujoharry against the election of R. Mohamed in 1953 and the voting pattern of the General population at the 1956 Municipal election became subsequent eye openers. The promise made to Muslims for Muslim Personal Law, among others, in exchange for their support for independence is still unfulfilled, even after 50 years!  I suggest to those who speak of Muslims' conservatism and those who fancy lecturing Muslims on citizenship and republicanism to go back to their history books before patronising Muslims into utopian dreams.
Best Loser: Much more than political representation
The bottom line is well articulated by Y. Mohamed: 'Do you think the situation has changed since the past 40 years. The day a Muslim or a Creole becomes the PM, then we'll talk again'. The point is that the BL, despite all imperfections, has symbolised a constitutional guarantee where Muslims were represented in the legislature and lay Muslims had access to these MP's to express their grievances. There is no problem in adapting, improving or even removing the BL. But why would I swap an acquired guarantee for a vain promise, when promises made 50 years have not been fulfilled? Yes, the pious wish that party lists in a system of proportional representation may yield more Muslim representatives is true, but it is still another promise. And who decides the party list? The party leader who -across parties- rules as an absolutist under the guise of a democratic masquerade. What if this leader, under sociocultural blackmail, decides to weed out all 'mauvais l'herbe et proteze so montagne'? In such cases, what guarantee does the party list offer?
The electoral system must certainly be reformed. There must be proportional representation of parties with respect to percentage votes obtained. But how can you expect me to trust the word of same people (or their sons) who keep orbiting around the same sociocultural lobbies that ostracised minorities, who keep their party finances opaque, who run their party with the iron fist of a medieval despot, who keep rewarding mediocrity at the expense of merits...and then expect me to trust their promise of democracy, transparency, equity, justice and meritocracy?
I think I would better be an alert conservative than a blind reformist.