Mauritius, a speck in the Indian Ocean, is celebrated for punching above its weight: strong economy, multicultural peace, and democracy envied across Africa. Yet its political machinery is less polished diamond than clunky kaleidoscope: First Past the Post (FPTP) exaggerates victories to absurd proportions, while the Best Loser System (BLS) resurrects defeated candidates in the name of “balance.” Together, they create a stable but skewed democracy, where winners win too much, losers refuse to die, and dynasties behave as if seats in Parliament are family heirlooms.

FPTP Stability by Sledgehammer

Mauritius divides into 20 mainland constituencies (3 MPs each) plus Rodrigues (2 MPs). Voters can tick as many names as seats. Alliances sweep entire districts, leaving losers with nothing.

• 1982 & 1995: ~60% of votes delivered 100% of seats.
• 2019: MSM won 37% of votes yet secured a majority with 42 seats.
• 2024: Labour-MMM coalition scooped 60 of 62 seats with ~63% of the vote.

If proportionality is democracy’s backbone, Mauritius’ system looks more like a chiropractor’s nightmare.

Data snapshot: Gallagher Index (vote-seat distortion)

• 1982: 28.4 (astronomical)
• 1995: 26.9
• 2019: 17.9 (still high by international standards)
• 2024: estimate ~25.0

For context: the UK averages 10–12, Germany (with proportional representation) sits at 4–5. Mauritius makes the UK look like Switzerland.

Satirical aside: It is as if Mauritians turn up to vote for dhal puri, biryani, and pizza — only to be told the restaurant is serving dhal puri, dhal puri, and more dhal puri.

The Best Loser System à Safety Net or Comedy Routine?

Introduced in 1968 to reassure minorities, BLS appoints up to 8 losing candidates to fix communal imbalances. The catch: every candidate must declare an ethnic identity based on the 1972 census — a demographic fossil.

• UN Human Rights Committee (delivered in 2012): Declared the communal declaration a violation of rights; an endeavour undertaken by Rezistance ek Alternative (ReA) in 2009..
• 2014: Candidates briefly allowed not to declare, but the loophole closed by 2019.
• ReA’s irony: After years of resisting ethnic boxes, its leader ticked one in 2024. Was it exhaustion, pragmatism, or the political equivalent of a vegan ordering KFC “to prove a point”?

Sometimes, candidates game the system. In 2010, Michael Sik Yuen declared himself “General Population” instead of Chinese to qualify as a best loser. He lost the election, won a seat, and became a minister. Mauritius thus pioneered a world-first: affirmative action for losers.Allow me to jog your memory about the above individual should you have contracted amnesia, as the Mauritian voters often do during the elections; Sik Yen was the same person prior to the 2024 election (while in opposition) had made a theatrical spectacle of the National Assembly by bringing with him fruits and vegetables and stating its price hike by the then (MSM et al) government. Fast forward post 2025; the population would definitely like to ask him how are the fruits and vegetables price being lowered now that he is elected. Most would simply say to you “… monter hogal ba!”

The Historical Rollercoaster of Winners, Losers, and Survivors

• 1976: MMM won most votes; Labour clung to power via PMSD. Popular will? Optional.
• 1982: 60–0 sweep. Opposition reduced to BLS zombies.
• 1983–1987: Jugnauth’s MSM consolidated power, using BLS to keep opposition tokenism alive.
• 1995: Another 60–0 landslide. Opposition squeezed into Parliament via four best losers, like guests reluctantly added to a wedding table.
• 2000–2010: Coalitions galore, power-sharing, and community balancing acts.
• 2014: Alliance Lepep victory, followed by Sir Anerood Jugnauth passing PM to his son. Parliament looked less like an elected chamber than a family WhatsApp group.
• 2019: Pravind Jugnauth converted 37% of votes into outright majority. Defeated ministers brought back via BLS. Party-hopper Tania Diolle revived and rewarded.
• 2024: Navin Ramgoolam returned at 77, winning 60 of 62 seats. Opposition reduced to 2 MPs, padded up to 6 with best losers.

Public Mood rather Fed Up and Moving Out

Mauritius’ youth are not amused.

• Democracy satisfaction: fell from 72% (2012) to 34% (2022) (Afrobarometer).
• Trust in Parliament: collapsing, with half describing democracy as “major problems.”
• Youth emigration: 74% of under-25s have considered leaving. Compared to 2016, the figure has doubled.

Mauritius’ greatest export is no longer sugar, textiles, or tourists — it is its young professionals. Hospitals, hotels, and call centres increasingly rely on imported labour, while graduates dream of Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Satirical aside: Mauritius might soon need its own Best Loser System for citizens: “You may have left for Melbourne, but we will bring you back to balance the youth quota.”

Character Sketch of The 2024 Best Losers

The current batch of best losers makes the case better than any statistic.

• Joe Lesjongard (MSM): Once rejected by voters, now Leader of the Opposition thanks to BLS. Imagine a goalkeeper who conceded five goals being named captain of the team.
• Adrien Duval (PMSD): Son of Xavier, grandson of Gaëtan. The Duval franchise continues. Parliament is less a legislative chamber than a family reunion with microphones.
• Henriette Dianette & Jacques Edouard (Rodrigues opposition): The only two who make sense — genuine opposition voices ensuring Rodrigues is not muzzled. Ironically, the furthest voices from Port Louis’ dynasties are the most legitimate.

Losers by Name, Losers by Nature

Mauritius’ electoral system is a masterclass in contradiction. FPTP inflates victories into parodies of democracy. BLS resuscitates defeated candidates, usually from dynasties that need no help surviving.

The result? Winners are too powerful, losers too privileged, and the electorate too cynical.

One best loser is a serial party-hopper, changing colours like a gecko on a garden wall. Another is a dynastic heir, coasting on a surname that has sat in Parliament longer than most Mauritians have been alive. Together, they form an opposition less feared watchdog than tired lapdog.

For Mauritians, the ballot box increasingly feels like a recycling bin: tick the boxes, fold the paper, and watch the same surnames re-emerge, washed and reused.

Mauritius is still a democracy, yes. But it is a democracy with an asterisk — free, peaceful, but tethered to colonial compromises, family franchises, and losers who never quite lose.

The People Get the Politics They Deserve

To conclude, for all the outrage about dynasties, best losers, and party-hoppers, one inconvenient truth remains: none of this would be possible without the voters themselves. Mauritians complain of nepotism yet dutifully re-elect the same surnames. They decry corruption and incompetence, then queue at the polling stations to keep their favourite “family franchises” in business. They sigh about youth emigration while still treating politics as communal arithmetic — as if casting a ballot were an act of tribal bookkeeping rather than civic duty.

In truth, Mauritius has perfected a unique model of democracy: politicians recycle themselves endlessly, and the people cheer them back in, muttering about change while pulling the same lever every five years. It is as if the entire electorate is stuck in a casino where the roulette wheel only has four family names, yet they keep betting on red, convinced black will eventually appear.

So yes, the system is skewed, the politicians shameless, and the dynasties entrenched. But Mauritians have voted for this again and again. Perhaps the real “best losers” are not in Parliament at all, but in the electorate itself — a public that complains about the play, but never changes the cast.

Mauritius does not just have the leaders it deserves; it has the voters it deserves too.