Mauritius: Political party funding

Updated July 2006

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).

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 These limits are based on outdated valuations however and would translate into limits four times their current nominal value (Bunwaree & Kasenally 2005, 31; Tshiyoyo 2005, 23).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".

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 24 Oct 2007).

SACHS COMMISSION 2002, 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 24 Oct 2007).

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