Electoral Reform Debate – What are we not being told?
16.02.2026
When debating what kind of electoral reform is necessary, let us not forget why it is necessary. We should recall the meaning of democracy: a system that gives expression to “the rule of the people”. Electoral campaigns give the people, in particular the working class, women, youth, the oppressed, relatively more political weight on the national political agenda. This has been true ever since universal suffrage and independence. Bourgeois parties know this enough to include a list of popular demands on the electoral agenda. Once general elections are over, the “Representatives of the People” officially elected constituency by constituency, a Prime Minister designated by the President of the Republic, his Cabinet of Ministers formed, a few of the popular demands met, then working class demands get brushed off the national agenda to be replaced by the agenda of the capitalist class.
This is the case both nationally and internationally.
We see it after Presidential elections in the US. Trump attributes to himself king-sized powers as President with elected representatives in Congress being sidelined. He does it with the backing of a powerful section of US capitalists in speculative casino-like financial sector, including in the new venture and cryptocurrency sectors, Silicon Valley high tech; real estate capitalist magnates, oil and gas transnationals, and capitalists in arms and military-related production.
We see it here at national-level when the democracy that during election-time becomes the vehicle for people to show a popular will for sanzman, gets thwarted right after election results are proclaimed and a Prime Minister installed. Even with the clearest of the clearest will for popular change expressed through a 60-0 electoral result. It happened in 1982 and it is happening now. This is what triggered the mass rage against the Ramgoolam-Berenger-Duval-Subron government’s trahizon of sanzman: the increase in universal old age pension age, selling-out on the decolonisation and demilitarisation of Diego-Chagos, and selling out towards Palestinian people in Gaza through its shocking withdrawal from “oral submissions” before the ICJ case against Israel for keeping the UN and others from distributing food and supplies in Gaza. People who voted for sanzman certainly did not have this “changement” in mind.
Let us also keep in mind that electoral reform was on the agenda for general elections: throughout the campaign, the need to do away with institutionalised communal representation through the Best Loser System, the need for the right to recall Members of Parliament by those who elected them, the need for more democracy in the electoral system was debated. The Sanzman Alliance got a 60-0 mandate for these changes.
This was reflected in the President’s Address on the 24th of January 2024 outlining the government’s program:
“ 6. Our country reckons more than five decades of experience of its Constitutional Framework, and it is therefore high time to review and update our Constitution. Following the review, Government will implement constitutional and electoral reforms required to further consolidate our democracy. (...)
A time-frame was specifically given:
“Government will appoint, within 6 months, a Constitutional Review Commission which will make recommendations on constitutional and electoral reforms as well as on enhanced protection of fundamental rights.”
And the aim of electoral reform clearly stated:
“The terms of reference of the Commission will include reforms to our electoral system so that it better reflects the will of the people of Mauritius (...) The reforms will include the right to recall Members of Parliament (...)”
Over a year has passed and it is only now that a Commission has been set up, but it will only look at non-electoral Constitutional reform. Presumably because it would take too long. So why is it that over a year after the elections, the question of electoral reform is so urgent on the national agenda? Is it because the Ramgoolam-Berenger-Duval-Subron government want more democracy? Is it because they want to respect their electoral commitments? No. Berenger wants an electoral reform in the MMM’s interests. Which is why he (not the Prime Minister) was the one who launched the debate on electoral reform last year in September. A few weeks ago, he announced that a bill will be put on the table in March when the National Assembly convenes again. And if not, the MMM will put into question whether it stays in government.
In contrast, Subron’s Rezistans, the most vociferous party during the 2024 electoral campaign for democratic electoral reform including electors’ right of recall their MP between general elections which at the time, they announced formed the basis for them joining the “Changement” Alliance, has now become meek. On the 3rd of February, Rezistans through MP Thanoo subserviently stated that “Rezistans” will accept whatever electoral reform the government decides to put on the table. She said (strangely, in the French language when asked persistently by Radio Plus in kreol) : “On est la pour soutenir la reforme comme presenté par le Gouvernement.”).
So finally, the Prime Minister’s Office went through the charade of inviting proposals on electoral reform up to the 30th of January without telling us who is to look at these proposals. Will it be the Prime Minister himself? Berenger and him? Will the ones preparing the Bill even glance at the proposals sent to the Prime Minister’s Office? In the past, there have notable attempts to make the procedure towards electoral reform more transparent, more democratic like the Sachs Commission of 2002 and Select Committees. Not this time round. Prime Minister Ramgoolam gets to have sole control over the whole procedure towards any (if any) electoral reform.
And this brings us to one of the biggest problems that needs to be addressed by electoral reform: the king-sized powers of the Prime Minister relative to powers of the Members of the National Assembly we elect to represent us in each Constituency.
This kind of question has been and still is being debated everywhere in the world. In India, there was a Constitutional amendment in 2003 to prevent the executive from dominating the legislature: the total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers cannot exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha (the national assembly) there. This was done for another reason: to stop “Jumbo Cabinets”, that is oversizing the Cabinet with all the public expenditure this entails to satisfy the appetites of parties in political alliances as well as potential defectors. Something we in Mauritius can easily understand from our own political experience.
In the UK, the right to revoke one’s member of parliament through an electoral petition was introduced in 2015, even though its form is pretty limited compared to what was initially proposed.
LALIT was amongst the first parties to present its proposals in September 2025 when Deputy Prime Minister Berenger first launched the debate. We decided not to email it to the PMO email address when all interested parties were invited to do so up to the 30th of January 2026 when we do not know who is to look at it. We re-publish them today because we think it is useful for national debate. We have slightly modified the section on proportional representation to open up another possibility of non-communal Best Losers. You can find these proposals in the Documents section of our lalitmauritius.org website.
We call on trade-union federations and confederations, on democratic associations to debate our proposals with the aim of working towards a common stand on electoral reform in the interests of the working class, women and youth.
Rajni Lallah
for LALIT
[16-Feb-2026]
