We have a shockingly staggering post-election predicament. The winner of an election is almost being portrayed as a loser (prémié dan laké) even if he captured 145 % more votes than his next opponent. Better, some badly defeated parties are arguing that they did not lose as their supporters stayed at home. And the cherry on the cake is the party that did not field a candidate claiming a great victory for its non-participation and the alleged high abstention rate. This is simply ubuesque.

These contradictory interpretations of the outcome of the by-election in Belle- Rose–Quatre-Bornes are probably driven by a mix of a false sense of comfort, an uncharacteristic disposition for levity and a stunning perplexity that is so distant from the stark reality that some want to knowingly emasculate. While the Labour Party (LP) should not be overexcited with this morale-boosting upshot and believe that it has already won the next general elections, it is ridiculous to minimize the significance of its landslide victory or give a distorted analysis of the clear and loud result.

The unprocessed reality of the poll

We have a First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system and results must be interpreted within the framework of such a voting mode. We cannot use the rules of rugby to assess a game of football. We do not have a two round system like in France where a candidate usually needs 50% of the vote to be returned, thus requiring a run off between the two best candidates of the first round.

In our FPTP system, whoever comes first is the winner. In a very large crowd of 40 contestants, the LP won decisively with 35.11% of the votes cast, leaving the second candidate very far behind with only 14.33% of the vote. The UK has a similar system to ours. In the constituency of South Belfast in 2015, the Social Democratic and LP candidate won with 24.5% of the vote in a packed race. He was legitimately elected and took his seat at Westminster. Whether 75.5% of the electorate did not vote for him was immaterial as the rules of the game were fully respected. The remark that 65% of voters in Quatre-Bornes went against Boolell is at best clumsy and at worst a disrespect to our current electoral system. In the general elections of 2014, Anwar Husnoo took only 36.9% of votes cast in his constituency. Not only was he duly elected, but he also became minister. It is totally consistent with our electoral system. Nobody argued that 63.1% of people voted against him !

Our FPTP formula is oblivious to voters’ turnout in deciding the winner . In few countries, a candidate does not win if turnout does not reach a given threshold. We do not have such a hurdle. The turnout at the by election was 55% which is higher than that reached in similar elections in many advanced democracies. The argument that Boolell took only 20% of the number of registered votes (thus implying that 80% of electors did not support him) is a laughable sophism.

On that fallacious reasoning, Husnoo obtained only 25.71% of the electorate and yet it did not matter. Equally, in two by-elections in the UK in 2017, Labour won one with 37% of vote on a turnout of 38% while the Conservatives took the other on 42% of the vote with a turnout of 51%. Nobody argued that they were elected with only 14% and 21% respectively of the electorate!

A heart-rending false sense of comfort

The clear winner among the unsuccessful candidates was undoubtedly Bizlall. His resilience, consistency and clarity of positions (whether one agrees with him is an altogether different matter) stood him in good stead with a section of the electorate. The Parti mauricien social-démocrate (PMSD) simply obtained what it has in the constituency. The synergy that delivered good results for Xavier Duval when in alliance with a big party simply evaporated with a stand-alone PMSD.

This is similar to ‘Les Verts’ in France. In alliance with a major party, it can return some MPs while on its own, it often loses its deposit in many ridings. Bhadain was overambitious and overinflated and came crashing to the ground, bruised and battered. Given its historical support, the Mouvement militant mauricien (MMM) is the biggest loser and has considerable soul searching to do if it is to arrest its secular decline. It has to find out whether the significant erosion is due to leadership, organization, structure, lack of relevance, electoral strategy, lack of new people, innovative ideas, and novel ways of doing politics.

The MMM is much too smart to believe that the LP won because of abstention, the division among the candidates of the left or some MSM supporters voting for the LP. It is also very naive to think that Boolell and not the LP that won. This victory is above all a thumping success for the LP and this was the crude reality on the ground. Of course Boolell was a good candidate. So were Diolle and Beejadhur. What makes it very difficult is that it is a constituency which ought to have been favourable to the MMM because of its socio-demographics. Yet it polled a paltry 14% of votes.

There are at least 13 other constituencies where the socio-demographics would be worse for the MMM. As for the MSM, let us hope that Minister Sinatambou does not, at his next press conference, hector us that his party is the indisputable winner as the 45% who abstained is higher than the 35% polled by the LP.

The levity of some reasoning

One is simply amused at the dialectic of some people to the effect that Boolell won with only 35% of the vote which is made worse by the low turnout of 55% . If we follow this reasoning, how should one interpret the victory of Alliance Lepep in 2014 with only 49.8% of votes on a turnout of 73%. It translates into the support of a mere 36% of the total electorate. Yet it took 47 of the 60 seats representing 78% of the seats which give it the freedom to change the major clauses of the Constitution in spite of the opposition of 64% of the population. Nobody complained as it is consistent with the provisions of our electoral system and our Constitution, even if many believe the voting formula is a flawed one.

On that same logic, how do one view the fact that 45 out of the 47 elected candidates of Alliance Lepep in 2014 failed to garner at least 50% of the total number of electors (as opposed to votes cast) in their constituencies. The two exceptions were Sir Anerood Jugnauth and Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo in Piton–Rivière-du-Rempart. Again, nobody expressed dissatisfaction as these are the parameters of our electoral system. Minister Sinatambou polled 49% of the votes cast on a turnout of 73%, implying that 64% of electors in that constituency did not support him. Of course this did not make him an illegitimate MP or an illicit Minister. He won within the rules of the system. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

The stunning perplexity of some arguments

Legitimacy is driven by the inherent features of an electoral formula. And it varies from system to system. In the US presidential elections of 2016, out of every 100 electors, 42 did not vote, 29 chose Clinton, 27 opted for Trump while two went to other candidates. Not only did Trump win with only 27% of Americans voting for him, but he also lost the popular vote by three million votes to Clinton. The electoral college system allows such possibilities. To be elected President with a small share of the electorate while even losing the popular vote.

Equally, Theresa May became Prime Minister of the UK in 2017 with the Conservative Party taking 42% of the vote on a turnout of 69%. If we are to believe the sophistry of some, how does she claim legitimacy with only 29% of UK electors behind her when 71% of people are apparently against her Government !

There are many such examples in our unique electoral system. I shall cite two. Ramoly was returned to Parliament in 1976 as a Best Loser with only 19% of the votes. Based on turnout, it represented only 17% of the electorate. Yet, he became not only an MP but also a Minister. Nothing sinister as it is congruous with our electoral system that provides for Best Losers.

Sinatambou was well beaten in 2005. He came fifth in his constituency and yet was appointed a Best Loser with only 37% of the electorate behind him. As per his own argument, 63% of electors were against him. He even became a Minister as he was saved by the uniqueness of our voting system. Nobody tried to diminish him as a duly elected member of our National Assembly. And rightly so as he was returned according to the rules of the game.

What would happen at the next general elections if in a four cornered fight, LP replicates its success in Belle Rose–Quatre Bornes in 15 constituencies ? .Will some argue that with 35% of the votes on a 55% turnout, it cannot form the next Government ? As only 19.25% of the electorate would have supported it ? There is no prize for guessing the answer. Unless of course we change the electoral system and the rules of the game are altered.

Otherwise, the moral of the by-election is a very simple one indeed. LP won a large victory in a pack of 40 candidates. There is no need to complexify a simple fact or to exhibit a false sense of comfort or bury heads in the sand. Even if the LP must be humble in its success.