2018: The Year in Review

Q1: Lepep Tram will not be biggest project ever. By-election hints at how return to 40 SMCs would make our democracy more vibrant. Error found in app of Electoral Commission. Reconstruction of great party cannot happen while he's there. Two Nobels didn't get Mauritius wrong. Sithanen toohrooh will grow by Rs300 billion if sanity not brought back to our tax structure. Mauritius turns 50. PJ announces resignation of President, latter has other plans. Calculation of Sithanen toohrooh explained. Road fatalities in Singapore fall by 14%. Next general election is going to be a lot more open.

Q2: Sound management explained. Chuttoo thinks Ivan wants to be kicked out government. The best Kreol dictionary in town. Why we shouldn't legalise pot. Is recruiting at the CEB biased? Recall elections are seriously overdue. More than 30% of World Bank reports never downloaded. Big electoral imbalances almost never last. 24/7 water for all should happen within five years. Putin begins last term with brand new car. Why creating the URA was a mistake. Wasn't 2018 supposed to be the year of the second 'economic miracle'? Some days are way better to present the budget. SEG has at least two more flaws. Another budget to nowhere. Only idiots will love Mars.

Q3: Water is a great role model. When will NASA go to the moon again? Weighing an elephant is no easy task. Sadhguru explains how India is different. Politician taking us for morons. Looks like something is brewing. That sugar has no future has been obvious for more than a decade. 10,000 Yankees died from cocaine addiction in 2016. Sharks want appointment with Minister. World listens as story of Chagos told at the ICJ. Road fatalities may hit all-time record this year. PM makes URA redundant. A framework to analyse decolonisation.

Q4: Pravind al lapes rekin ek enn lapipi danzere. Canada rejects proportional representation. Marx at 200. Shelina eksplik kuma fer zasar lisu. How important is ethnicity in deciding elections? Our roads killed 6,716 in 50 years. Although it promised several one referendum would be a great start. Mauritian voters are quite mature. Why politicians want a dose of PR. Why we lost two decades on electoral reform. Division of votes should become standard parliamentary practice. Doing Business is a misnomer. PM presses ahead with plan to make us a banana republic. Worse than termites.

What's Worse Than Termites?

Why Division of Votes Should Become Standard Parliamentary Practice

And available in a spreadsheet on the website of our National Assembly. Simple. So we can know how each MP voted on each bill or motion. This will help us understand what the representatives we send to parliament stand for. And if her speeches are consistent with her voting pattern. This is useful information before getting in an election booth or deciding whether to trigger a recall election. See, who wouldn't want to know who was for the negative income tax, rise in old age pension and the ICT 'annoyance' law to name just a few?

Why Electoral Reform Got Sidetracked For a Couple of Decades

The first reason is that the really smart politicians who understood the dangers of proportional representation (PR) passed away thirty or more years ago and were not replaced by a crop of a similar calibre. SKJ and SSR died in 1985 while Renganaden Seeneevassen who was one of the fiercest critic of PR was gone even earlier – he died in the middle of 1958. The only politician of that generation who is still active is SAJ which would explain why he dubbed PR a komeraz. But then again he doesn't seem to fully understand all the risks of PR. This is reflected in the dangerous bill on electoral reform before parliament. It has failed to address the problems with government formation countries encounter when they add a dose of PR to a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. And we definitely cannot count on Navin Ramgoolam and today's Labour Party to bring wisdom to the debate. They're deeply mired in trickle-down economics and bean-counting.

The second reason is terms of reference (TOR) that were too narrow. From Sachs to Sithanen only PR solutions were considered although better non-PR solutions exists. There was even a brief attached (see screenshot) by the MMM to the TOR of the Sachs commission. It's fine to raise an eyebrow. The big plus of course is the internet. Ideas can spread a lot faster than before in our hyperconnected world.

The Real Reason Politicians Want Dose of PR

It's not because they want more women in parliament. Legislation can be passed within our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system to have female candidates represent at least one-third of the candidates. It's not to remove the obligation for candidates to categorise themselves into one of the four categories of the best loser system (BLS) either as we just need to chop this section off our constitution to do that. Besides the BLS is not subsumable. It's not to specifically correct the big imbalances that were generated in four of the last 11 general elections because these can be handled in a way that doesn't take away any of the huge benefits of the FPTP. Plus we need to remember that three of the four lopsided results collapsed before 21 months.

So what's the reason for a dose of PR and increasing the size of a parliament that voters across party lines already find way too big? Easy. To create a class of MPs that's a lot more difficult to remove in a general election as shown in the chart above.

Make sure your MP knows you don't want this. 

How You Know the BLS is Not Subsumable

That's easy. Just check the democracy-shrinking bill on electoral reform that the PM will be bringing to parliament tomorrow. If a party doesn't line up at least 1/3 of women or men (see p6) it will lose its party status and will therefore not get any proportional representation (PR) seats. If a PR-MP crosses the floor his or her seat may be declared vacant under certain conditions. Clearly these are sanctions. But look for one if you don't line up candidates from more than one community and you will find none. Are there sanctions if names on the party lists don't reflect some of our diversity? Nope. Any sanctions if the best loser seats as defined in the dangerous proposal are attributed to members of one community? Ziltch.

We know that the BLS has deprived us of some really good oppositions. And that 50 years of progress is enough proof to do away with it because the best protection for any minority is policies that makes sense: progressive taxation, respect for the environment and solving national problems. But that's not what happening. Attempts are being made to fool us into believing that an autocracy will make us a united country. This is also what Rezistans ek Alternativ has effectively been doing for several years.

How Mature Are Mauritian Voters?

Quite mature and increasingly so. We just need to look at the calm environment in which our elections take place. Plus voters have proceeded with five changes of government (see 1) with four of these happening in the past twenty-three years. These were made a lot easier by our FPTP system which produced clear winners immediately in ten out of eleven general elections – it took a tiny bit more time to form a government in 1976. And given how we massively rejected the wicked plan of a scheming trio in December 2014 it is natural that proposed changes to our electoral system be put to us in a referendum and not decided in parliament as it smacks of a conflict of interest. Especially when they will seriously blunt a weapon we've used to keep several politicians out of our National Assembly including the five who have been our PMs. And open the door for all kinds of additional abuse in these times of passport sale and ministerial eye-test.