Sheila Bunwaree: "The Issue of Women's Quotas is Outdated"

Sheila Bunwaree, a sociologist and political observer, believes that the topic of women's quotas is no longer relevant, although she supports an electoral reform that includes a proportional representation element.

The Ministry of Women has launched a campaign titled "Fam, to pa zis enn viktim, to enn sanzman" ("Family, you are not just a victim, you are a change"). This raises the question of whether this is a genuine effort by the authorities to tackle the issue of violence against women or just another campaign that will fade into oblivion.

The Ministry is fully committed to this cause, and if this means 'taking the bull by the horns', then that's commendable. The Ministry deserves our congratulations, along with the support and encouragement of civil society, because this issue concerns us all. Without collective responsibility, we cannot succeed.

The theme of the campaign is relevant as it reminds women of their extraordinary capabilities and intrinsic qualities to say NO to this scourge and change the narrative. However, to move away from a narrative of 'victimhood', it is essential that women have agency—the ability to make choices freely and take decisions. Thus, they can become active agents of change, as highlighted by the campaign.

Nonetheless, exercising this free choice depends on multiple factors, including economic autonomy. A campaign, even if well-supported, is not enough on its own; we must also reassess the economic model and value the 'care economy'. The work women do at home remains invisible and unpaid. A woman without financial resources is particularly vulnerable, limiting her ability to be an agent of change.

Earlier this year, I had the honor of participating in a plenary session with Professor Naila Kabeer at an international conference, where we discussed the need to re-examine women's agency in relation to the economic model, especially in the context of the feminization of poverty and global reconfiguration. Unfortunately, we are still far from this here. As for whether this campaign will fall into oblivion, it is up to each of us to ensure it is not neglected.

In 2023, 7,177 cases of domestic violence were reported, of which 5,729 involved women, accounting for 80% of all cases. Terrifying, isn't it?
It's frightening and unacceptable! We live in a society steeped in violence in all its forms, where girls and women exist in insecurity. I remember reading Shakuntala Hawoldar's book 'So That Flowers May Bloom' over 20 years ago, where she describes the deeply ingrained patriarchy in all spheres of our society. She calls it the 'marrow of the bone,' and it is evident that very little has changed today. On the contrary, these figures reveal a reinforcement of highly unequal power dynamics between men and women.

From the 3,768 cases of domestic violence recorded between January and June 2025, about 3,200 directly concern violence against women. Have they become a 'punching ball' for some men?
Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies violence, and no human being—woman or man—should become a 'punching ball.' This metaphor illustrates situations where partners, sometimes frustrated and unable to manage their emotions, let their anger explode. The suffering and inner wounds then manifest violently. The constant rise in these cases shows that our society is deeply ill, and the path to remedying this remains long, very long.

What drives this violence in all its forms: the race for money, economic liberalism, or a lack of education in certain spheres of our society?
Multiple factors come into play: frustrations, poor emotional management, but also the proliferation of drugs and alcohol. Violence is a systemic issue, and each case remains unique despite some commonalities. As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu highlights in "Masculine Domination", male domination is a form of symbolic violence that is often invisible, perpetuated by the everyday dynamics of society. The superiority of men is normalized, creating a power imbalance and rendering inequality almost natural.

Opinions are divided on this matter: should the battered woman leave the family home with her children to avoid further violence, or should the abusive husband be the one to leave?
Opinions may vary, but it makes much more sense for the abuser to leave the family home. Women and children are the most vulnerable. Leaving a home will only exacerbate this vulnerability. Having a decent roof under which to live without fear, tension, or the risk of being hit is essential for everyone's well-being, especially for children.

How can we explain that after fleeing their homes to escape violence, some women return to their abusers?
I participated in an international conference discussing "Counter-Hegemonic Discourses in the Indian Ocean and Africa: Thinking and Writing a Shared World", which also addressed literary works. Professor Xavier Garnier from Paris 3 presented an insightful analysis of our compatriot Nathacha Appanah's works, particularly "La nuit au cœur". His analysis shows that women often remain at home or return to their abuser for very complex reasons: intense emotions, attachment to a healthy family life, economic dependency, or feelings of insecurity. Several psychologists share these insights. It is also crucial to deconstruct certain ideals, like that of a peaceful family life, even at the risk of violence.

Turning to the political aspect: the Alliance of Change was on the brink of collapse and barely survived after a year in power. Who is to blame between the two leaders of the PTr and the MMM?
Paul Bérenger has become a master of noise and appears filled with contradictions. He is no longer the same Bérenger from the 80s and 90s—he served the country well, and many are grateful. But life teaches us that it is time to make way for others. One must know when to say STOP, especially when one begins to become incoherent in their statements or multiply slips of the tongue. Some will say, "But it’s Bérenger; he is like that, there’s nothing we can do," but a modern and civilized country, where mutual respect is fundamental, demands a certain behavior from its leaders.

As for who is to blame between the two leaders? According to some, Navin Ramgoolam is slow to make decisions and jealously clings to his powers as the leader, continuing to appoint people from his circle even to key positions. As for Paul Bérenger, he does not view this favorably and struggles to digest the fact that he is just a sidekick. Moreover, his own entourage no longer wishes to follow him blindly, especially if he were to leave to join the other side of the House. In summary, blame is shared between Ramgoolam and Bérenger.

Do the people give them too much importance?
The most important thing is to stop wasting time and energy placing too much importance on these two gentlemen. Instead, we should teach the nation to be vigilant and demand that these leaders be truly accountable. They should work to find solutions to the country's multiple problems: poverty, hunger and malnutrition among the most vulnerable populations, lack of water, slow transition to renewable energy, and growing inequalities.

It is very sad that the ruling alliance, which promised a re-foundation of Mauritius and real change, is unable to keep its commitments. We may say there are four years left before the end of the term, but the signals received so far leave us skeptical. The example of soaring prices is telling: the inability of sick individuals to procure necessary medications, and the statements from the Minister of Commerce claiming that prices have fallen in supermarkets… I don't know which supermarkets he frequents, but around us, even the most ardent supporters of the alliance acknowledge that prices are rising every week.

The stumbling block between the two political giants has been electoral reform. For the MMM, would this be the solution to remain alive on the political chessboard?
Electoral reform is indeed crucial, but if it is driven solely by the desire to survive on the political chessboard, we are on the wrong track. It is essential to conduct wide consultations across the country, to listen to the population in order to achieve a reform that genuinely deepens democracy and ensures a plurality of voices in Parliament. New faces, equipped with innovative ideas and necessary skills, are urgent. Modern Mauritius no longer wants dynasties, casteism, sexism, or outdated leaders—without practicing ageism. Will the electoral reform proposed to us (if it is proposed) truly be inclusive and fair?

Navin Ramgoolam announced on Wednesday that the government would move forward with this reform. What more can it bring to the political landscape and to the country?
As some have already pointed out, electoral reform that includes proportional representation would guarantee a plurality of voices, the presence of a significant opposition, and a diversity of ideas, thereby enriching democracy. Navin Ramgoolam and Paul Bérenger also mention better female representation through this reform. However, all reports and commissions on electoral reform are very clear: there is no need to change the electoral system to advance women’s representation. Political leaders must break this male stronghold. The near-monopolization of political space by men can easily be dismantled: by drawing inspiration from the law on municipal and village elections, it is possible to amend the Constitution, especially in the context of a 60-0.

But further…
Some argue that the number of deputies in Parliament should be increased and that proportional representation would facilitate this. I strongly oppose this. At a time when it is crucial to make savings to reduce public debt, we are starting to talk about increasing it again. As if an effective electoral reform necessarily requires more deputies. This economic question is just the tip of the iceberg. Also, listening to the debates on the radio, proportional representation is not simple to implement.

Let's first start with an essential question about deepening democracy and electoral reform: why, with a 60-0, can we not have 70 deputies in Parliament? We should not drown ourselves in articles and sections of the Constitution. Let's correct this anomaly before moving further.

There is also the crucial question of political party financing. We all know how "money politics" is a source of corruption and ties with major drug lords on our small island. Combating corruption must be, in my opinion, the absolute priority.

We talk about reform, but shouldn't it aim to address our patriarchal system instead?
Absolutely! As I pointed out earlier, patriarchy is rooted in all spheres and structures of our society, including within political parties. It is unfortunate that the women's wings of traditional parties struggle to assert themselves and claim their rights. They often bear the influence of the great patriarchs and are sometimes manipulated to favor the promotion of certain individuals. This is not just my claim: research conducted last year by Gender Links and the European Union shows that women belonging to these women's wings suffer this male diktat.

Where does the place of women lie: through a guaranteed quota or without a quota, but with strong and competent women?
You may be right to use the term "vassals of the leaders," but I wouldn't want to generalize. There are certainly strong, competent, and dignified women who are not willing to subordinate themselves merely to secure a small spot here or there. I am convinced that the debate on women's quotas is now outdated. We must move towards parity. There are many women with talent—competent and principled—qualities essential for managing the country's affairs. Gender parity in politics can be a true driver of development, especially in the face of numerous current challenges.

Allow me to add that the small handful of women who behave as subordinates often contribute to reproducing and reinforcing patriarchy. Some people have also pointed out to us that some women do not wish to see others progress in the political hierarchy. If I'm not mistaken, Anishta Babooram spoke about this in her critique of the Minister of Women.