Rezistans ek Alternativ’s (RA) wonderfully satisfying slap in the face of institutionalized communalism is to be commended on several levels, not least of which is the rejection of the fatalistic mindset that appears to have the country in its grip. More importantly though, it has shown up the mainstream political parties for what they really are: all bluster and no balls. For all their talk about emancipation and independence, they have been patently unable to bring about even timid changes to one of the most toxic aspects of the great colonial hand-me-down: a highly polarized electoral system that distorts the popular vote in favour of the victor. At the risk of reprising the MMM’s position on the issue, a position founded on brazenly transparent electoral considerations, is it not possible that the real enemy of Mauritian democracy multiple member first-past-the post ballot, rather than the Best Loser system?

Don’t get me wrong, the BLS is an aberration that has absolutely no place in a country that prides itself on its pluralism. Over and above its role in entrenching communalism, it’s also becoming increasingly synonymous with parliamentary mediocrity. A cursory look at the list of candidates that benefited from the BLS during the last elections tells you all you need to know about its true worth.

That parties base their whole lists on such calculations beggars belief.

It must be said though that getting rid of the BLS on its own will have a limited impact it needs to be part and parcel of a greater electoral reform, one that does away with the dictatorship of the fi rst-past-the-post system. The fact that the mainstream parties have hung onto it for so long (despite paying lip service to its demise) is indicative of whose interests the current setup serves.

That the BLS has been the focal point of reformist ire is understandable it’s like a cartoon villain, an ugly throwback to a bygone era when our decisions were made for us. It’d be hazardous however to underestimate the nefarious influence on our politics of the current electoral system as a whole. In “Why Partition?”, his withering essay on the months preceding the creation of India and Pakistan by the British Raj, Perry Anderson explains that Congress’s overinflated sense of its own importance was only compounded by a skewed electoral system: “Intoxication of this sort was fortified by the most damaging legacy of colonial rule: not the stoking of communal furies but the introduction of first-pastthe- post voting systems, converting plurality into monopoly representation at constituency level.” Sound familiar at all?

RA’s recent breakthrough was a victory for us all. They’ve only won a battle though, not the war. It’s up to all of us now to carry on where they left off and demand, in our different capacities, that our so called political leaders rid the country of these colonial remnants.

As Rodriguez used to sing, “And that’s a concrete cold fact”.

Nicholas RAINER