Jocelyn Chan Low: "The MMM has finished as a party"

The dismissal of 35 members from the Mauritian Militant Movement, including fourteen municipal councilors, has sparked strong reactions. Beyond the internal discipline cited by the party leadership, observers are questioning the political and constitutional implications of these decisions.

The wave of dismissals decided during the central committee meeting on Saturday, April 18, in Rose Hill continues to create ripples within the Mauritian Militant Movement (MMM). By targeting 35 members, including fourteen councilors, the party leadership has undertaken a drastic restructuring that now extends beyond internal matters to enter the public debate.

While MMM leaders mention the necessity of preserving party cohesion and discipline, the impact of these decisions raises questions both politically and legally. Many observers see this as a symptom of a deeper crisis marked by internal fractures and an uncertain recomposition of the party.

Democracy

Legally, Parvez Dookhy, a constitutional law observer and attorney, reminds us that legislation clearly regulates this type of situation. "When an elected person resigns from their political group, it is considered that they have also resigned from their mandate," he explains, referring to Article 37(3), amended in 2023. He adds that "Article 37A states that a person dismissed from their group is deemed to have left," which leads to the loss of their seat.

However, this legal interpretation does not quell the debate. "Such a dismissal can be seen as undemocratic since the elected official was chosen by the people. Only the people can end their mandate," he argues. According to him, the Supreme Court may need to rule on the compliance of these provisions with the Constitution, particularly its first article that enshrines the democratic nature of the state.

Parvez Dookhy also mentions the possibility of "abusive procedures" or "misuse of power," as these dismissals could be perceived as a means to prevent certain elected officials from fulfilling the mandate entrusted to them by voters. On the other hand, this contradicts the historically defended stance of the MMM, which asserts that an elected official should be able to execute the mandate for which they were chosen.

Beyond these legal considerations, the political reading is sharper. For Jocelyn Chan Low, the current situation reflects a deep rupture within the party. "There is now an open war between the two factions," he claims. According to him, recent events indicate a structural weakening of the MMM.

"The MMM has finished as a party," he states bluntly. For him, the party "no longer embodies what it once claimed to be." He describes an organization that is now fragile, "dependent on a few individuals, with activists sometimes reassured, sometimes left in uncertainty." He believes that "ideology has been replaced by political clientelism."

Jocelyn Chan Low believes this crisis is not limited to internal disagreements and will have medium-term repercussions. "The current situation reveals not only fractures but a dynamic that could completely overturn everything in the next elections of 2029."

He also questions the immediate consequences of the dismissals. "Will there be vacant seats? We don't know. Some were dismissed for choosing to follow Paul Bérenger. In the upcoming elections, they might not weigh in unless supported by other parties, in a context where the number of tickets may decrease."

The MMM is playing a high-stakes game, the outcome of which could permanently redefine its future.