Ashveen Kutowaroo LLM MSc PMP®
The window for submitting formal proposals on electoral reform has now closed. But closing a deadline should not mean closing the conversation. Electoral reform has once again found its way into the national spotlight, and rightly so. This was never meant to be a box-ticking exercise. At its core, the question of how we elect our representatives goes to the heart of our democracy. It shapes how power is entrusted, whose voices are heard, and whether citizens continue to place their confidence in public institutions. Until a final decision is taken, this debate belongs not just to policymakers, but to the public at large.
The Arya Sabha has approached this moment with a sense of responsibility rather than enthusiasm for change for its own sake. History teaches us that constitutional tinkering, when rushed or politically driven, can weaken what generations have carefully built.
In response to the Prime Minister’s Office communiqué, the Arya Sabha constituted an Electoral Reform Consultancy Committee composed of jurists, social workers and grassroots leaders. The intention was simple but serious: to engage with the subject as citizens serving the nation, not as partisans pursuing an agenda.
The Sabha’s position begins with a principle that cannot be overstated. Electoral reform belongs to the people. It is not the policy project of a government of the day. Any Constitutional Review Commission must therefore be guided by neutral, open-ended Terms of Reference. If the outcome is pre-scripted, for example by mandating a particular model such as proportional representation, the process loses credibility before it even begins.
Mauritius does not suffer from a democratic deficit. Our electoral system, though often criticised, has produced stability, alternation of power and peaceful coexistence in a deeply plural society. That did not happen by accident. It is the result of a carefully balanced architecture that recognises social realities rather than pretending they do not exist.
Much is said today about “equitable parliamentary representation”. The Sabha takes a firm but reasoned view that equity already exists in our system, and in several layers. Constituency boundaries are deliberately unequal to reflect population density and community concentration. The First Past The Post system is complemented by the Best Loser System, which corrects under-representation without undermining electoral legitimacy. Three-member constituencies and block voting further ensure that political minorities are not shut out.
To add more “equity” on paper may, in practice, create inequity on the ground. What works in homogeneous societies does not necessarily work in Mauritius. Our democracy has been shaped by our diversity, not in spite of it.
Where the Sabha strongly supports reform is in the modernisation of the electoral process. This is where progress is both necessary and inevitable. Digital electoral registers, online voter registration, faster counting, and eventually secure digital voting are tools of the present, not the future. Younger generations already find paper-heavy systems outdated and inaccessible.
That said, technology must serve trust, not erode it. Any digital reform must be introduced gradually, possibly running in parallel with existing systems until public confidence is firmly established. Mauritius is no stranger to rumours of electoral malpractice, and perception matters as much as reality.
On representation itself, the Sabha’s message is cautious and clear: do not fix what is not broken. The electoral system has been tested over decades. Altering its core mechanisms, especially the First Schedule of the Constitution, is not a simple amendment. It may amount to an alteration of the constitutional structure itself, with serious legal consequences.
Such a move should not be undertaken on the strength of a parliamentary majority alone. In a plural democracy, legitimacy comes from consent. If the First Schedule is to be touched in any way, the safest and most democratic path is a properly framed referendum preceded by widespread public education.
The same logic applies to gender fairness. Increasing the number of women in Parliament is a goal worth pursuing. But it need not be tied to proportional representation or constitutional surgery. Political parties already control candidate selection. Ordinary legislation and party discipline can achieve meaningful progress without destabilising the constitutional balance.
A reform process also demands informed citizens. Public consultation without access to historical reports and expert studies is an empty ritual. From Banwell to Sachs, Carcassonne and Sithanen, these documents must be made easily available so that Mauritians engage with facts, not slogans.
Finally, the Sabha defends the principle that candidates must declare their community if they wish to stand for election. This is not discrimination. It is the mechanism that allows the plural character of our society to be fairly reflected in Parliament. To dismantle it under the banner of abstract equality is to misunderstand its purpose.
Mauritius is often called a “rainbow nation”. Our strength lies in our differences, carefully managed through institutions that recognise reality rather than deny it. Electoral reform should deepen that harmony, not gamble with it.
Better is sometimes the enemy of good. Reform, if it comes, must be owned by the people, guided by wisdom, and carried out with humility. History will judge not our intentions, but our prudence.
