The Paradox of Power-Sharing in Mauritius

This chapter analyzes the phases of power-sharing in Mauritius. It argues that power-sharing remains a paradox—a hybrid combination of majoritarian and consociational features to maintain political stability. The period of decolonization consists of political accommodation between the British colonial authorities and the representatives of national and ethnic parties. At the very outset, the paradox in the adoption phase entails different complexities in the lead-up to independence including ‘general risk aversion’ where the British authorities intended to adopt a Western model of parliamentary democracy to avoid the stakes related to ethnopolitics and their blatant support to the Indian community. After independence, despite the adoption of several power-sharing features, including a culture of coalition politics and a system of proportional representation known as the Best Loser System, the Mauritian political system remains highly majoritarian with the dominant rule of the Hindu-majority. Mutual veto powers and segmental autonomy are weak with much power vested in the Prime Minister. Further challenges include the marginalization of some smaller ethnic minorities, in particular the Creole community, and the fact that ethnic representation tends to be prioritized over gender representation. In terms of adaptability, electoral reform remains deadlocked.