26/05/2026
Parliament Must Not Normalise Racist or Pejorative Language
The incident in the National Assembly involving Reza Uteem and Joanna BĂ©renger should concern every citizen who values the dignity of parliamentary democracy in Mauritius.
The use of the term âcolonâ towards a fellow parliamentarian is not an insignificant matter of semantics or political heat. In Mauritian social and political discourse, the expression carries pejorative and racial undertones which have no place within the walls of the National Assembly. Parliament is not a platform for humiliation, innuendo, or discriminatory rhetoric. It is the supreme democratic institution of the Republic, where words must be measured, responsible, and respectful.
The Speaker was correct to intervene and request the withdrawal of the remark. However, the response displayed a troubling lack of firmness in the face of what many would reasonably perceive as a serious breach of parliamentary decorum. In a multicultural republic such as Mauritius, where ethnic sensitivities remain deeply intertwined with the national fabric, the Chair cannot afford to appear hesitant or overly permissive when confronted with language carrying racial or degrading connotations.
Under the long-established Westminster conventions reflected in Erskine May Parliamentary PracticeïżŒ, the Speaker possesses not merely the authority, but the obligation, to act decisively against offensive and grossly disorderly conduct. Where remarks are discriminatory, inflammatory, or likely to undermine the dignity of another Member, stronger disciplinary action â including ordering the offending Member to withdraw from the Chamber â falls entirely within accepted parliamentary practice.
A mere withdrawal of words, without any visible sanction or stronger reprimand, risks sending the wrong signal both inside and outside Parliament. It creates the perception that certain forms of offensive conduct can ultimately be brushed aside with minimal consequence. The authority of the Chair is not measured solely by interventions, but by the firmness and consistency with which parliamentary standards are upheld.
Importantly, Mauritius Global Diaspora has remained consistent on this principle. The organisation previously adopted the same position during the controversy involving former Speaker Sooroojdev Phokeer and remarks directed at Rajesh Bhagwan such as âlook at your faceâ. The issue therefore transcends party politics or personalities. It concerns the defence of parliamentary dignity, mutual respect, and the refusal to normalise language that demeans or divides.
Mauritius is a plural and multicultural democracy built upon coexistence, constitutional balance, and social harmony. Public office holders therefore carry a heightened responsibility in the language they employ. When offensive expressions are treated lightly, Parliament risks legitimising a broader deterioration of public discourse across society itself.
Democracy is not weakened by discipline. It is strengthened by it. The Speakerâs office exists precisely to safeguard the honour of the House and to ensure that parliamentary debate, however robust, never descends into racial insinuations, ridicule, or personal degradation.
Mauritians expect passionate debate from their elected representatives. But they also expect restraint, dignity, and statesmanship. The National Assembly must remain a chamber of ideas â not a theatre of insults.
L'Ă©quipe de Mauradio et le Mauritius Global Diaspora
