In this frantic week, there has been another sideshow that’s been going on. That is, the one that is being run by Ashok Subron and the Rezistans ek Alternativ. In a nutshell, Subron is demanding that the chief justice, Eddy Balancy, intervene to allow candidates in the upcoming election to do so without having to declare their ethnicities on nomination papers. Otherwise, Subron declares, the election will be neither “free nor fair”. 

First is the question of how allowing this would improve our elections or make them more ‘free’. Or even whether it would help battle communalism at all. Candidates not declaring their ethnicities cannot take a second crack at getting a best loser seat, so all this means is that this option is only availed either by idealists who have no chance of winning an election, or by party leaders contesting safe seats. The bulk of them will continue as before. This is not mere speculation; it’s been proven by experience. In 2005, the Balancy judgement allowed ReA candidates to stand without declaring their ethnicity and in 2014, a ‘mini amendment’ passed by the Labour Party and the MMM temporarily allowed the same for that election. Did communalism disappear in the elections of 2005 and 2014? And in any case, this argument rests on a simplistic assumption that just deleting such provisions would erase communalism too. Caste is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution but who will deny that it plays a part in our elections? Subron saying that such a demand is to ensure a ‘free and fair’ election is a hyperbole taken a bit too far: the implication being that aside from 2005 and 2014, no other election in Mauritian political history has been free or fair. An interpretation that few would accept. 

Not only that, but this tactic has arguably worsened communalism in politics. Subron took this demand to the UNHRC and in 2012, it decided that Mauritius should either reform its electoral system or reinstate the communal census to allow the best loser system to function properly without having to rely on census data dating back to 1972. Thanks to Subron’s tactic, the PMSD could recently demand the reinstatement of the communal census arguing that it was also what the UN had recommended. 

What makes Subron’s demand this week all the more galling is not that he continues to cling to a demand that has delivered such poor returns thus far but that in asking Chief Justice Eddy Balancy to intervene and allow the ReA to stand as candidates without having to declare their ethnicities, Subron is unwittingly playing a dangerous game behind a façade of progressivism. Since declaring one’s ethnicity is an electoral requirement of the constitution, there are two ways of getting rid of it: either through a 3/4 majority in parliament or the provision being struck down by the Supreme Court. In 2014, the ‘mini amendment’ passed through the National Assembly. Now with parliament dissolved, that road has been closed off. In 2005, the ReA was allowed to stand without declaring their ethnicity because of the Balancy judgement (which was subsequently overturned by a full bench of the Supreme Court). In other words, it was a court judgement, not an ad-hoc intervention by the chief justice. More importantly, this very same question is currently being decided by the Supreme Court (a bench that includes Balancy – the whole recent ‘recusal’ drama). By asking Balancy to intervene in such a way, what Subron is in effect demanding is that the chief justice not only usurp the powers of parliament, but also pre-empt a decision on a case that he and other judges are supposed to be in the process of deciding. If taken seriously, it’s hard to see how this circus will end well. 

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, Weekly magazine (Price: Rs 25) or subscribe to Weekly for Rs110 a month. (Free delivery to your doorstep). Email us on: weekly@lexpress.mu