Any other method designed to protect minority representation, however ridiculous or unfair it may be, will always claim to have the same objective. When in his electoral reform report, former Finance Minister Rama Sithanen brags that he is keeping the objective of the BLS by replacing it with the new system or mechanism he is proposing, he is merely putting dust in people’s eyes. In truth, he is proposing the abolition of the BLS.

Rama Sithanen is portrayed in the press as someone who did his PhD on « Evaluating and proposing Electoral Systems for Plural Societies », and this is being used as a strong selling point for his report. In truth, Rama Sithanen is also reported to have completed his PhD not in electoral systems for plural societies as such but in « Political Sciences » in which he had chosen the subject of electoral systems as thesis. Armed with such a thesis, Rama Sithanen is clearly well-placed to advise on matters concerning electoral reforms in a plural society like Mauritius, although different types of plural societies do require different approaches. However, one must not confuse a plural society with a pluralist system of government. Let us look at what Rama Sithanen is proposing and whether his system is preferable to the Best Loser System (BLS), and how he went about it.

1. As someone who is armed with a doctoral thesis in electoral systems, Rama Sithanen apparently never came out with any report to replace the BLS in Mauritius until he took cognizance of the reports of the jurists Albie Sachs and Pr Guy Carcassone. To what extent, if any, he borrowed from them and changed things around in the light of his knowledge of the subject is not known, but the fact remains that he did proceed to write his report only after reading the reports of Sachs & Carcassone, as PM Ramgoolam acknowledged in the latter case when he said his government would study the Sithanen’s report. It is also acknowledged that he did study the jurists’ reports before making his recommendations [« Réforme électorale : dernière chance », Jean-Denis Permal, Matinal 30th January 2011]. Critics may well argue that he has not produced an inspired piece of work, but merely based his opinions through disagreeing with the jurists’ original reports, his excuse being to avoid « unintended consequences », whatever this is supposed to mean.
2. Rama Sithanen is said to have « simulated » all the general elections since 1967 relative to the recommendations of Sachs & Carcassone. This simulation seems as clear as mud. Firstly, the results of the general elections since 1967 are historical and not simulations. Secondly, how he used those historical data, if at all, in the light of the Sachs & Carcassone reports is far from clear. Thirdly, how he formulated his own recommendations thereon are even more unclear.
3. He says that, before writing his report, he consulted at least « fifty stakeholders », who included political leaders, constitutional experts such as Sir Victor Glover, Sir Hamid Moolan, former Judge Robert Ahnee, Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen, members of the « Civil Society » as well as Sociologists, Historians and experts in ‘electoral mathematics’. By jove, how impressive! But he is the expert on electoral reform. He should be the one who is well-versed in electoral mathematics. Why does he need so many experts? What good are sociologists and historians for the purposes of electoral reform? What did he gain from them? Can they be regarded as grassroots of political freedom and fairness? How did he select them? Why has Sithanen not conducted a survey of the constituent elements of the Mauritian people based on representative samples? Surely, can his ‘samples of experts’ be regarded as representative of the people? This should give people an indication how his report has been mounted.
4. Also, he criticises the Carcassone Report for not taking into account electoral boundaries because he says that, defining electoral boundaries are more important than the electoral system. But he seems to misunderstand the very essence of Proportional Representation (PR) which transcends such boundaries. PR looks beyond boundaries. By arguing that the electoral problem resides in the 60-0 of 1982 and 1995 and that a solution should be found between the number candidates and the number of votes, he is effectively agreeing with Pr Carcassone and contradicting himself. He even gave the game away when he speaks of « national representation » rather than ‘electoral boundaries representation’.
5. He also recommends no more than 2 candidates of the same sex in any constituency. He is therefore assuming this should apply to every political party which puts forward its 3 candidates in any constituency. Although he does not spell it out, he is trying to force parties to put forward at least one woman candidate. In so doing, he is making decisions on behalf of political parties in their selection of candidates. This ridiculous suggestion goes against the very concept of political freedom. A political party is free to choose, a man or woman candidate depending on its belief in the candidate’s competency and ability to get elected. No one has the right to interfere with this freedom. If the party feels it should have 3 male or 3 female candidates, or a mixture of 3 candidates in a particular constituency, it is free to do so. Rama Sithanen is not a sort of demigod who can force women to go into politics, force parties to put them forward as candidates and force people to vote for them so that they may find their way to the Assembly in order to satisfy his electoral reform dream. He even wants the government to amend the constitution to that effect, amendment which may well be unconstitutional. Or, could his constitutional experts have advised him otherwise, since he named them?
6. He wants to substitute the nominations of unelected candidates with most votes from minority communities under BLS for nominations from Party Lists, irrespective of whether or not the candidates have received most votes. He argues that « 75% of MPs will depend on the choice of electors and only 25% will be chosen by the party. With a threshold of 10% (or 5% plus 3FPTP) to be eligible for national seats ». How did he work out that 10% threshold or equivalent? Did his ‘electoral mathematicians’ tell him that? What formulae, if any, did they use? Or, did he just pluck the figure from thin air? Furthermore, how will this « promote harmony and foster nationhood » as Sithanen alleges? It is more of a recipe for chaos, disharmony and civil unrest.
7. Then he comes up with the ‘formula’ « Unreturn Vote Elected (UVE) » and proposes 17 points - of what and from where?. Or, has he just plucked the number 17, again from thin air? On top of the present 62 elected MPs, Rama Sithanen also wants at least 20 (another figure plucked from somewhere!) more MPs under his proposed reform, at the expense of the taxpayers, of course! Does a small country like Mauritius really need so many MPs? I am still wondering if his use of the words ‘Unreturn Vote Elected’ is good English or some form of muddy encoded message, like most of what he is saying.
8. Rama Sithanen proposes the system of « Double candidacies ». Good Lord ! What is this supposed to mean? To him, it means that a candidate can present himself (herself) for election at constituency level and, at the same time, be part of his Party List which is closed in that the « order » of candidates cannot be changed as it should be submitted to the Electoral Commission on Nomination Day. Hence, if the candidate is not properly elected, he (she) can be nominated from the Party Closed List. To Rama Sithanen, this is a candidate which has submitted two candidacies! He even says that this exists in countries ranging from Germany to Lesotho! Also, he offers no explanation as to the « order » in question. To add insult to injury, he refers to a « closed » Party List and then states that this is « better, safer and more transparent » but does not demonstrate how a closed list can be transparent. It would not be farfetched to say that he is taking people for a ride.
9. He says that the Dutch, the South Africans, the Austrians think that an electoral system should be « just and equitable ». But, does he not know this? Does he honestly think that the Dutch colonisers can teach us about justice and equity?
10. He is not comparing like with like and he is mixing issues to carry forward his dream. In one example, Sithanen finds it unacceptable that Bérenger received 47% of the votes at constituency level but was not elected. While he criticised Carcassone for ignoring electoral boundaries, Bérenger could only have found his way to Parliament at national level, that is, beyond electoral boundaries. But then, he argues that in 1982 the Labour Party obtained 28% of the votes but its leader was not elected. He jumps from percentage of votes obtained by a candidate to that obtained by a party (when he should compare like with like) and then filters it to its leader. Sithanen is merely jumping de coq à l’âne and misleading people.

Conclusion
In formulating his alternative to the BLS, one would have thought that Rama Sithanen would have, first and foremost, demonstrated where the BLS is lacking and how his proposal would remedy the situation. But this does not appear to be the case. On the contrary, he proposes to abolish the system without justification, but argues that he is keeping the ‘objective’ of the BLS. Past election results emanate from a defective FPTP system; any exercise (simulations!) carried out on those defective results will merely amplify those defects. He produced his report on electoral reform only after he studied the reports of the jurists Sachs & Carcassone, and made a right mess of it through flawed and contradictory arguments, while using the good names of eminent Mauritians without showing what he borrowed from them and how it has been applied in his report for the purposes of electoral reform. He accuses Pr Carcassonne of using the example of Spain, but he feels at liberty to refer to countries like Lebanon where the colonial constitution provides for the President to be always a Christian, or like Lesotho which, according to him, Mauritians have to learn how to operate ‘closed’ party lists in ‘transparency’. Which serious government would even consider such a report?