[Blog] A Minority Protection System cannot operate if minorities are not identified by law

The official recognition and protection of minorities do not prevent people from respecting one another in diversity or from being patriotic. Only the unintelligent, the bias, the prejudiced and the bigot would prevent such recognition. We are the State! - « l’État, c’est nous ! ».  Once Constitutional protection of minorities is removed, the consequences would be disastrous.

Democracy has to do with majority rule

In Christian majority countries, such as in most countries populated by people of European stock, like the UK, France, the US, Canada, Australia, non-Christian minorities have to be identified if they are to be included and protected in jobs, politics and other spheres of life.

Although democracy, European democracy to be precise, in itself has to do with majority rule and nothing to do with the protection of minorities, it has ‘evolved’ to do so. Similarly, democracy, which is inextricably linked with the capitalist system, has ‘evolved’ into adopting the Marxian sentiment of need by offering free health care, pensions upon retiring age, free education and other state benefits. In fact, although Karl Marx was an Atheist and was not wrong in saying that religion was used by the capitalist oppressors to exploit the poor like we saw in Africa and elsewhere, and steal their resources and countries, his belief in a welfare system can be traced back to religious teachings.

Reform of Democracy

A Minority Protection System therefore has to do with the reform of democracy itself because majority rule based on European democracy, in which political parties are financed by capitalists to protect their own interests, tends to be oppressive, domineering and trampling on minorities, whether those minorities are Whites or Blacks, Christians or Muslims, Africans or Indians. In the so-called Muslim world, the Coptic Christian minorities have been protected for nearly 2000 years. The Holy Prophet of Islam made it an act of faith to protect the Coptic Christians.

« In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (saw) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. »

Like freedom of expression, minority protection is not an invention of democracy. Popular consultation (the wishes of the people), freedom of expression, laws and justice and protection of minorities have always existed in religious and other teachings and practices and in matters of government. Minority protection was introduced to reform European democracy. But for the system to work, those minorities have to be identified by law and it is the job of government to ensure that it is properly administered and enforced. Similarly, in a system to protect the handicapped, the orphans and adopted children, those people need to be identified by law too. How else can they be protected and included in politics, jobs and so on?

But those who oppose the protection of minorities argue that it is a discriminatory system because it forces the person to identify if he/she is a Christian or Muslim or Hindu, of African or Indian stock, and so on. But, in any electoral system, is the person not required to declare his/her date of birth, name, sex and address too? Does this have to do with name, age and sexual discrimination? In France, name discrimination is quite common as Arab/Muslim-sounding names tend to be excluded from jobs and other spheres of life.

« L'État, c'est nous ! »

Yet, censuses are carried out all over the world at regular intervals (normally every 10 years) to know the make-up of populations, their socio-economic groups, their locations, their age group and so on. This is a vital instrument which is used to ensure that a country allocates resources properly and to ensure that a country is properly governed with fairness amongst the diversity of its people. The human world is not a homogeneous world. People are diverse and their diversity must be recognised and protected. This recognition does not prevent them from respecting one another or from being patriotic. Only the unintelligent, the bias, the prejudiced and the bigot would prevent such recognition.The State is us! –« l’État, c’est nous! ». 

Mauritius was an uninhabited island. Its population came in mainly from Europe, Africa, India and China. The majority (around 70%) are Indo-Mauritians, meaning Mauritians of Indian stock, followed by Afro-Mauritians. On the religious front, the majority of Mauritians are Hindus. The second largest religious community are Christians followed by Muslims.

Some anti-MPS protagonists argue that we are all Mauritians and that we have to think and speak in terms of ‘mauricianism’, a latinised term which no one can define and understand. Those fanatics have a political agenda of their own and want to control the minds of Mauritians. In fact, the island is called Mauritius after the Dutch coloniser and slaver Maurice de Nassau who committed crimes against humanity. If the island had retained its Arabic name « Dina Arobi » (Abandoned Island) or it’s Portuguese name « Cirne » (the Swan) or its French name « Isle de France », what would that make us and what ‘ism’ would we use? Being Mauritian is just a national identity under our immigration laws for someone entitled to a Mauritian passport.

Best Loser System (BLS)

During the years leading up to Mauritian independence on 12 March 1968, the main political parties at the time thrashed out a Mauritian version of the MPS called the Best Loser System (BLS). This version means that the Mauritian Parliament should more or less reflect the diversity of the Mauritian population since the First Past The Post (FPTP) system is defective because it tends to give the majority party a higher number of seats compared to the percentage of the votes received. In other words, because Hindus are in majority, they tend to receive a higher number of the 62 FPTP seats. So, BLS would allocate up to a maximum of 8 seats to candidates from a minority community who have lost but obtained most seats amongst the losers, hence the term “Best Loser”.

The BLS is closely linked with the census. Unfortunately, at every post-1968 general election, reference is made to the 1972 census, the reason why, in its 31 August 2012 report, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) effectively advised that the census should be updated as « the requirement of mandatory classification of a candidate for general elections without the corresponding updated figures of the community affiliation in general would appear to be arbitrary » (section 15.5). The UN is committed to the Protection of Minority Rights.

Ethnicity denotes non-White races

Anti-BLS protagonists allege:

1. That the UNHRC outlawed the BLS, which is a complete LIE designed to mislead Mauritians. Secondly, the UNHRC is not a court of law, has no legal jurisdiction in Mauritius and has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Mauritius.

2. That the BLS ‘ethnicise’ the electoral system and set out to « deethnicise » the Mauritian Constitution. The word ‘ethnicise’ is a fabricated term and not proper English.

(1) Recognition of ethnicity has nothing to do with ‘ethnicisation’. Similarly, the recognition of orphans does not mean the ‘orphanisation’ (to fabricate another such stupid term!) of anything. Mauritians do not want to delve in such political language of the gutter! 

(2) The term ethnic group was coined by White Europeans to identify the non-white minorities at home and in their colonies. Ethnicity denotes the non-White races.

(3) The British press reports the drive of the MI6 to « appeal for ethnic minority recruits » [Evening Standard, 24 May 2018]. How can MI6 recruit people from ethnic minorities if they are not identified by law? Does this mean that MI6 is 'ethnicising' the organisation?

Stability and harmony

The Mauritian government cannot proceed to remove the BLS system simply because a [...] political party like « Rezistans ek Alternativ » is challenging the Constitution upon the advice of the Privy Council which threw out their case simply because they were trying to challenge the Mauritian Constitution via the backdoor. This does not mean that the Mauritian Supreme Court or the Privy Council will uphold this challenge. Ethnic and religious identifications are well entrenched in British law too.

The BLS has worked extremely well for 50 years since Mauritian independence. It has preserved stability and harmony amongst Mauritians, something which any government should fight tooth and nail to safeguard. This state duty cannot be relegated to political parties. Political parties tend to nominate candidates who are most likely to attract votes and most likely to contribute to their coffers. The government cannot control party lists of political parties and force any political party to include in its party list or to put forward as candidates so many men, so many women, so many Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sino-mauritians, Afro-mauritians, and so on. In any case, does this not amount to 'ethnicising' party lists too?

One so-called expert in electoral reform simply because he wrote his student thesis on the subject, wants to do just that, replace the BLS with party lists which are open to all sorts of corruption but has no idea how minority rights would be protected and how this would maintain peace and harmony in the country. Out of his hat, he even fabricated 20 PR seats and 10% of the national vote for any party to be eligible for PR seats, not to mention his fabrication of a new English word 'deethnicising'. He therefore favours large parties and tries to decimate smaller parties. He even said that the UNHRC outlawed the BLS, which is totally untrue. And, he even has the audacity to say that what he is putting forward is not « devoid of flaws ».

The Mauritian government must be very careful when listening to such 'experts'. Remember how many such experts said that Black Africans were lesser humans, had smaller brains and could be enslaved. And slavery lasted for hundreds of years, and at what costs? Once Constitutional electoral protection of minorities is removed, the consequences would be disastrous.

M Rafic Soormally

Economist

27 May 2018