English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the lead up to independence in Mauritius two commissions were appointed by the British colonial authorities to determine the type of electoral system that would be used. The choices were between proportional representation (PR) and plurality voting, and larger versus smaller constituencies. PR was rejected as it was feared it would harden communal divisions and smaller constituencies were chosen to ensure adequate representation of the society’s different ethnic groups. A review of the 11 general elections that have taken place between 1967 and 2014 shows that plurality voting and smaller constituencies have had the very same effect that was imputed to PR. With the exception of the 1982 general election, government has always been formed by a Hindu-dominated political party and voting seems to be conducted primarily along ethnic lines. The paper argues that this level of predictability in voting patterns is due to the legacy of how Mauritius’s electoral boundaries were delimited and suggests change will only come once they are reformed.

The Vicious Circle that is Mauritian Politics: The Legacy of Mauritius’s Electoral Boundaries