Mauritius: Political party funding

Updated May 2010

Public funding

Parties receive no public funding in Mauritius (Lodge et al 2002, 180). The Sachs Commission Report (2001, 67) proposed that public funding of parties be adopted and attached a draft Public Funding of Political Parties Bill to the Report. The National Assembly appointed a Select Committee on the Funding of Political Parties to review the proposals which issued a report in October 2004 that did not support public funding (Bunwaree & Kasenally 2005, 15, 30-31). The Government created a Cabinet Committee to review both reports in November 2004 but failed to submit its findings before the 2005 elections, which the government lost (Prime Minister's Office 2004).

Party income

There are no regulations on party fund raising activities in Mauritius governing sources, amounts or public disclosure. This has led to concern and even scathing criticism on the part of commentators. Amédée Darga (2004, 6), for instance, has remarked of political parties that, "they mobilise funds either through some direct corruptive practices during tenure of office, or through what is diplomatically called "donations" mainly from private sector companies, such "donations" being always unofficial and unacknowledged". The issue has also been raised in the private sector from the point of view of good corporate governance, and the Joint Economic Council has called on members to disclose party donations (Darga 2005, 9).

Extracted from: Rouikaya Kasenally 2009 "Chapter 8: Mauritius" IN Denis Kadima and Susan Booysen (eds) Compendium of Elections in Southern Africa 1989-2009: 20 Years of Multiparty Democracy, EISA, Johannesburg, 283-284.

In general, parties mobilise their funding on an informal basis from funds accumulated through donations during their term in government or from private sector funding. The incumbent alliance has no access, whether officially or unofficially, to public financial or material resources for its political activities. Some commentators have alleged that those in power may be able to benefit from funds received from corrupt practices while in office.

As far as the private sector is concerned, the question of funding has been raised from the perspective of 'good corporate governance'. The Joint Economic Council, which is a private sector umbrella organisation, issued official guidelines calling on its members to normally disclose to whom they make donations and the amounts involved in their financial records. As in previous elections the private sector will be the main funding source for parties. While some companies will fund parties of their preference, the dominant practice is for companies to give to the main parties or alliances. Donations may be of different amounts to different parties, depending on the firm's evaluation of the relative strengths of the parties and of their chances of winning.

Party expenditure

The Representation of the People Act (1968, 49-57) regulates only the election expenditures of individual candidates. It provides for the appointment and revocation of agents and sub-agents and their powers and responsibilities (49-50, 52-55), limits on candidate spending (51), for a return to the returning officer detailing expenditures made (56) and lays down procedures for late claims (57). In 2005 a party was not permitted to spend more than Rs150 000 on each candidate, while independents were permitted to spend up to Rs250 000. These limits are based on outdated valuations however and would translate into limits four times their current nominal value (Bunwaree & Kasenally 2005, 31; Tshiyoyo 2005, 23). Dieudonné Tshiyoyo (2005, 23) reports that:

"Almost all candidates and parties admitted to spending more than the maximum permitted and to permitting statements that did not disclose the actual expenses for the electoral campaign and private contributions".

Sachs Commission and political party funding

Extracted from: Rouikaya Kasenally 2009 "Chapter 8: Mauritius" IN Denis Kadima and Susan Booysen (eds) Compendium of Elections in Southern Africa 1989-2009: 20 Years of Multiparty Democracy, EISA, Johannesburg, 283-284.

There is no public funding of political parties in Mauritius. In its report the Sachs Commission proposed the public funding of political parties along with the adoption of a law providing for the establishment of a fund which would receive funds appropriated by parliament and such other funds which it may lawfully receive. Such funds would be administered by the Electoral Supervisory Commission, which shall allocate moneys along the following lines:

to political parties represented in the National Assembly on the basis of the number of members they have in the Assembly, the percentage of votes cast in favour of their candidates, and the number of women they have in the Assembly;
to elected candidates and those who, although not elected, have scored 15 per cent or more of the votes expressed in their respective constituency; and
before the election, to those parties which field 60 candidates in the 20 constituencies of Mauritius, at least 20 of whom are women.

Presently, each party should not spend more than Rs150,000 (US$ 5,400) on each candidate, while independent candidates should respect the ceiling of Rs250,000 (US$ 8,900). In 2004, the Select Committee on Funding of Political Parties recommended a series of measures, including the setting of a spending limit for a general election at Rs1,000,000 (US$ 36,000) for individual candidates as well as candidates forming part of political party25 but the committees recommendation were never enacted.

In general, parties mobilise their funding on an informal basis from funds accumulated through donations during their term in government or from private sector funding. The incumbent alliance has no access, whether officially or unofficially, to public financial or material resources for its political activities. Some commentators have alleged that those in power may be able to benefit from funds received from corrupt practices while in office.

As far as the private sector is concerned, the question of funding has been raised from the perspective of good corporate governance. The Joint Economic Council, which is a private sector umbrella organisation, issued official guidelines calling on its members to normally disclose to whom they make donations and the amounts involved in their financial records. As in previous elections the private sector will be the main funding source for parties. While some companies will fund parties of their preference, the dominant practice is for companies to give to the main parties or alliances. Donations may be of different amounts to different parties, depending on the firms evaluation of the relative strengths of the parties and of their chances of winning.

References

BUNWAREE, S & KASENALLY, R 2005, Political Parties and Democracy in Mauritius [PDF document], EISA.

DARGA, LA 2004, Mauritius Electoral Reform Process [PDF document], EISA Occasional Paper 24.

DARGA, LA 2005, EISA Election Update: Mauritius 2005 [PDF document], 1.

LODGE, T, KADIMA, D & POTTIE, D 2002, Compendium of elections in Southern Africa, EISA, 163-174.

PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE 2004, "Cabinet Decisions taken on 05 November 2004", [www] http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/pmosite/menuitem.4ca0efdee47462e7440a600248a521ca/? content_id=a4b3534d7bff7010VgnVCM100000ca6a12acRCRD [opens new window] (accessed 22 Feb 2010).

SACHS COMMISSION 2001 Report of the Commission on Constitutional and Electoral Reform 2001/02, [www] http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/pmo/file/reform.doc [MS Word document] (accessed 22 Feb 2010).

SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES 2004, Mauritius.

TSHIYOKO, D 2005, EISA Election Observer Mission Report: Mauritius National Assembly Elections 3 July 2005 [PDF document], EISA.