Mauritius: Political mobilisation and political parties

Updated May 2010

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, 270-272.

Mauritius, like some other parts of the British Empire, achieved its independence by concession from the parent country. While many countries can speak of their independence as being fuelled by nationalist sentiment, Mauritius experienced a different situation altogether: no nationalist sentiment existed in Mauritius. Anti-colonial feelings were expressed by the Hindu majority, but large sections of the other ethno-religious groups preferred to maintain ties with the mother country. Mauritius was divided as it negotiated its way towards independence: 44 per cent of the population voted against independence, but independence was finally granted to Mauritius in 1968. Ever since, it has developed into a relatively strong multiparty democracy, based on the Westminster parliamentary model. The constitution of Mauritius was amended in 1991, and the country became a republic with a president appointed for a term of office of not less than five years by a prime minister and ratified by parliament. The Mauritian parliament is unicameral and all seats in the national legislature are elected (Bunwaree & Kasenally 2005).

Political mobilisation in Mauritius started as a reaction to the established colonial 'oligarchs' and saw the coming together of the Creoles and the Indo-Mauritians to fight for their rights. This gave rise to the Mauritius Labour Party (MLP), founded in 1936. In fact, the MLP was to become the driving force for independence. However, it must be noted that as the island negotiated the terms and conditions of its independence the Creole-Indo-Mauritian unity disintegrated, causing the creation of ethnic-based political parties. To the present this ethnic demarcation still persists, although the majority of political parties claim to represent and practise broad-based politics.

Political parties have always been allowed to flourish and compete in Mauritius. At the time of the most recent general election (2005) there were some 71 political parties registered (Electoral Commissioner's Office 2005). Political parties have no legal requirements or restrictions imposed upon on them. However, most of these parties are election-specific and/or gather too few votes to be represented in parliament.

The three major parties that have dominated and are likely to continue to dominate the Mauritian political landscape are the Labour Party (LP), the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) and the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM; Bunwaree & Kasenally 2005). An interesting feature of these parties is that for the past 30 years or so these parties have all undergone multiple splits. The splits have generated new parties, most of them short-lived; other splits have been driven by communal/ethnic desires, while still others have essentially become one-person or one-issue parties. Coalitions and alliances are also recurrent features of Mauritian politics, allowing certain parties or groups of parties to retain or access power (Kadima 2006).

However, post-independent Mauritius saw the emergence of the MMM, which was to challenge the old LP guard and appeal to certain ethnic groups, namely the Muslims, a fair segment of the Creole community and certain minority strands within the Hindu majority group. The 'hegemony' that the LP had acquired vis-à-vis the Hindu community as an ensemble was eroding, and this was further exacerbated with the formation of the Parti Socialiste Mauricien (PSM) - a splinter party emanating from the LP which joined forces with the MMM for the 1982 general elections. The ethnic value of the PSM has been widely commented on, and to many political observers it allowed the MMM to move away from the established perception that it comprised only Creoles, Muslims and certain ethnic minority groups.

With the creation of the MSM in the early 1980s, the party recuperated and rallied a large section of the Hindus who had been staunch supporters of the LP prior to its 1982 decline. In fact, the period 1983-1989 saw the great reunion of the Hindu community, with the MSM taking on board the LP as well as other minority parties for two successive elections (1983 and 1987). As for the PMSD, the presence and clout that it had secured among the Creole community during the pre-independence period steadily dwindled with the creation of the MMM. The PMSD has also suffered from multiple splits, which has further fragmented its electoral base.

Mention was made earlier of the several splits that the three main parties have undergone since their inception. Although these splinter parties have not really affected the electoral balance (as ascertained by several opinion polls), they have chipped away at the electoral capital of the three mainstream parties.

The LP has 'generated' splinter parties such as the PSM, Rassemblement des Travaillistes Mauricien (RTM) and the Mouvement Travailliste Democrate (MTD), which emanate from and represent the Hindu community.

The MMM has undergone three splits since its inception: in 1973, 1983 and 1993. The only split which resulted in the formation of a significant party was that of 1983, when the MSM was created. The Renouveau Militant Mauricien (RMM) formed in 1993 did not amount to much, and the MSM and RMM recorded the lowest percentage of the popular vote of any post-independent general elections when they garnered only 19.3 per cent in the 2005 general election (Kadima 2006).

Since its inception, the MSM has undergone several phases of turbulence, marked by the departure of senior party members. The party underwent its first official split in 1994 when a senior minister of Jugnauth's cabinet, Madan Dulloo, left to create the Mouvement Militant Socialiste Mauricien (MMSM). The MMSM remains a one-person party and is currently part of the Alliance Sociale led by Navin Ramgoolam's LP.

In the past decade or so the Mauritian political landscape has also been marked by the advent of ethnically motivated parties such as Hizbullah [renamed the Front Solidarité Mauricienne (FSM)], the Mouvement Democratique Mauricien (MDN) and Les Verts, who claim to represent the voices of a given section of the Muslims, Hindus and Creoles, respectively. These three parties have not caused a major stir, but their ethno-political claims have from time to time struck a sympathetic chord among some people belonging to certain ethnic groups [However, the FSM's leader, Cehl Fakeemeeah, did win a seat in the National Assembly in the 2010 election (EISA 2010)].

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, 303-304.

One of the more noticeable features has been the realignment of the opposition parties. The two coalition partners MMM and MSM decided to part ways following their defeat in the 2005 general election. What ensued was a very fragmented and disjointed opposition, which spends more time attending to internal feuds than exercising constructive opposition. Currently, the opposition is made up of 29 parliamentarians (13 MMM, 12 MSM and four from Rodrigues) with three different party lines. The MMM holds the position of leader of opposition as it has more parliamentarians. However, many observers believe that the balance of numbers can tilt either way, making the opposition a space to watch in the run-up to the 2010 general election.

The 2009 by-election following a judgement of the British Law Lords in a case of electoral bribery weighed significantly on the Mauritian political scale. It was the long-awaited opportunity for the leader of the MSM to secure a seat in parliament. Neither the ruling coalition, the Alliance Sociale, nor the MMM fielded any candidates. They left it to the MSM and the Union Nationale (a party formed after splitting from the MSM in 2006). The Alliance Sociale unofficially supported the MSM, whilst the MSM officially backed the Union Nationale. The victory of the MSM has given rise to intense political speculation as to a possible coalition with the Alliance Sociale. The by-election was also important as it was held following a case filed against electoral bribery which meant that the campaign was supposed to be a test case of a clean and corruption-free campaign. The Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC) elaborated and implemented a Code of Conduct (see Code of Conduct 2010 for details) for that by-election and the Commission expects to use it for the 2010 general election. In the by-election the Code of Conduct was not fully adhered to, and observers believed that this was due to the code lacking legal status.

As regards the much debated and needed constitutional and electoral reform, there has been very little progress made. This was despite the multiple public statements made by political leaders that they are agreeable to electoral reform. As the 2010 general election draws closer, the fear that once again electoral reform will be brushed aside has been strongly felt. It is to be hoped that the political leaders will realise the urgency of the matter and respond accordingly.

References

BUNWAREE, S & KASENALLY, R 2005 Political Parties and Democracy in Mauritius, EISA Research Report No 19.

EISA 2010 2010 National Assembly elections results overview.

ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS OFFICE 2005 Data on the 2005 General Election, Mauritius, ECO.

KADIMA, D (ed) 2006 The Politics of Party Coalitions in Africa, Johannesburg.