(+B) Why Elections Cannot Be Rushed: Jone Dakuvula*
Original name “Is Fiji’s Suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum Inevitable?”
PacNews 22 January 2009

[Although overtaken by events- the Forum decision is now known - this is an important background paper on why the Interim Government maintains elections cannot be rushed. It deals with Banimarama’s “broken promise” and comments crtically on the roles played by Australia and New Zealand in Fiji’s past and present conflicts. The paper is slightly abridged, with subheadings added and key points underlined]


Why punish us when progress is being made? Suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum is a serious international issue because it would mean continued suspension of bilateral and multilateral aid that Fiji needs at this time, for at least another 12 months. Punishment of Fiji is to continue because we do not have an elected government and we cannot have an Election by March. Is this a reasonable way to treat an important member state of the Pacific Islands Forum? Why should the majority of Fiji’s people suffer another year because they have supported the People’s Charter as the most constructive way forward toward constitutional democracy? We have a legally legitimate government that is in effective control. Through the UN and Commonwealth mediation it will seek consensus on a constitutional way for electoral reform and then an election can be held. Fiji is merely asking for a bit of understanding and patience from our neighbours.

Bainimarama did not break his promise. The Tongan Prime Minister, Dr Feleti Sevele, has already stated his government’s position against suspension. He knows that Bainimarama had only agreed to the Election in March because he and PNG Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare, had assured him there would be flexibility if Fiji agreed and later not be able to meet that date, then they would support him for a more suitable date. They also knew that Bainimarama had said at the Melanesian Spearhead Group meeting in April 2007 that it would take more than two years for Fiji to be ready for an Election. These two countries are likely to support Fiji at the Pacific Islands Forum meeting.

The Interim Government has repeatedly given its reasons for election delay. The Interim Government had first given its reasons for a longer lead time towards an election, in June last year in a meeting of the Pacific Foreign Ministers in Auckland. Ratu Epeli Nailatikau then warned his fellow Pacific Foreign Ministers that Fiji would ask for extension of time at the next Pacific Islands Forum meeting last year.

Last August, the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Contact Group visited Fiji and they were again given the reasons why postponement of the Election is necessary, from the Prime Minister, the Electoral Commission, the National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF). and others that they met. This was followed up by a comprehensive response to their draft Report to the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders, just before the meeting in Niue in August last year. Their Report had omitted the practical reasons given by the Prime Minister and the Independent Fiji Electoral Commission.

People’s Charter. Basically the interim government wants to follow the Peoples Charter as the way forward towards Election. The NCBBF after a year of public consultation has produced a State of the Nation and Economy Report and the Peoples Charter, with comprehensive recommendations for reform of the electoral system, Parliament, laws, governance institutions, the economy and other areas. It is a comprehensive reform programme and most of them can be implemented by an inclusive and committed elected government.

Non-attendance in Niue.It was unfortunate that the Prime Minister last year had to cancel his attendance of the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Niue in the last minute because of the New Zealand government’s abuse of Forum process in excluding Fiji from the post Forum Dialogue held in Auckland. The Prime Minister gave up the opportunity - that he had prepared well for -to persuade the Forum to accept the postponement of the Election because of the Peoples Charter, which now has the support of a big majority of the people of Fiji. It was put out by Australia and New Zealand that Fiji had “chickened out” of the Forum meeting.

However, it was the failure of the Pacific Islands Forum to understand and accept why Elections need to be postponed that is the reason for the continuation of this stand off. It begs the question: why should Fiji go to this special Pacific Islands Forum just to repeat what the Forum Foreign Ministers had already been told? In any case, members of Pacific Islands Forum already know why Fiji must postpone this Election and they appreciate those reasons, notwithstanding Toke Talagi and Stephen Smith’s warnings.


Australia and New Zealand’s influence at the United Nations and the Commonwealth Secretariat may have also caused the delay in the responses from these international organizations to Fiji’s invitation, in May last year, to be involved in facilitating the political dialogue. What could have started in August 2008 was unnecessarily delayed by Australia and New Zealand’s desire to keep control of the orchestration of the international relations with Fiji. This strategy is losing credibility.



Harare, Millbrook and Biketewa. One needs to go a little way back in history to see the context and the motivation behind the Australian and New Zealand government’s contradictory approach. These countries were mainly responsible for the Millbrook Action Programme on the Harare Declaration, agreed to at a meeting of Commonwealth Leaders in New Zealand in 1990. The Millbrook Action Programme spelt out the procedure that the Commonwealth would follow in case of serious abuses of Commonwealth principles in the Harare Declaration. This included overthrow of democratically elected governments. The Millbrook Action Programmes said if a government that is overthrown could not be restored sooner, following suspension of membership from the Commonwealth, at most 18 months will be given for the member to hold successfully supervised and monitored elections. And then restoration of full membership would be justified.

The New Zealand and Australian governments had in mind the experience of the 1987 Coups in Fiji. This was seen as a constructive international guideline for collective action by the Commonwealth on restoration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in a suspend member country within a time frame that was thought reasonable.

In 2000, again Australia and New Zealand initiated at the Pacific Islands Forum the Biketawa Declaration which asserted a procedure for democratic intervention in the Pacific to “uphold democratic processes and institutions.” The Declaration said there were options for sanctions if necessary as targeted measures. Biketawa came about because of the experiences in Bougainville, the Solomon Islands and Fiji. It seemed to envisage both earlier conflict prevention initiatives, and post conflict prevention interventions.

No doubt the Foreign Ministries in New Zealand and Australia were upset that Fiji, after the Tonga Pacific Islands Forum, decided it must have its own timetable for restoration of democracy, directly challenging the commitment made under Biketawa. Helen Clark and Winston Peter’s were still smarting from their failed attempt to broker a deal between Bainimarama and Qarase to prevent the 2006 coup. Probably in their view Fiji’s defiance, if allowed,
would mean failure to enforce Millbrook and Biketawa against the country whose errant ways had given birth to these Declarations in the first place.

Sanctions and Threats of Expulsion. The credibility of Millbrook and Biketawa are at stake, so the threat of suspension is invoked. Sanctions, although irritating to the Interim Government, have failed to secure co-operation from Fiji with the Pacific Islands Forum. The Pacific Islands member states themselves have not implement targeted sanction, like prohibition of Interim government Ministers and officials from entering Pacific Island countries. This has weakened the credibility of these sanctions and the grounds for suspension, as far as the Interim government is concerned.

Putting suspension on the Pacific Islands Forum agenda will place Pacific Islands member states of the Forum in a difficult position since most of them want a resolution that preserves good relations and everybody’s dignity. Suspension from the Commonwealth was a different matter from a first precedent – setting suspension of the host and founder member of the Pacific Islands Forum. The regime of Robert Mugabe, whose record is much worse, has not been suspended from the Organization of African Unity. So why suspend Fiji when we are about to advance further the dialogue process? What purpose will suspension serve at this stage?

NZ and Australian Roles following the 2000 Coup. New Zealand and Australia need reminding that they partly contributed to the causes of the 2006 Coup when in March 2001 they ignored the ruling of their own eminent Judges in Fiji’s Court of Appeal and supported an illegal election. Compliance with the Millbrook Action Programme on Election seemed more important to Australia and New Zealand in 2001 than the rule of law in Fiji. They helped bring into power an ethno-nationalist government that ruled on the basis of rejection of the 1997 Constitutional settlement. It also disastrously mishandled relations with the RFMF.

Australia and New Zealand did nothing to urge moderation on the Qarase government, or to intervene earlier to mediate the consequent conflict between the government and the RFMF after the 2001 Election. By November 2006 when the Australian, New Zealand and UK High Commissioners intervened at Queen Elizabeth Barracks, it was too late.

NZ and Australia deny our legitimacy and encourage the opposition. Like in 2001, Australia and New Zealand have again ignored the Judgment of our High Court that had legally legitimized the Interim government. The High Court had called on the international community to assist the Interim government in its chosen path back towards Constitutional democracy. This practically means there must be flexibility and Fiji should have enough time to prepare for the Election. The Constitutional Review Commission had said 12 to 15 months from the time the Electoral reform is agreed and implemented. Australia and New Zealand should learn the lesson of 2001 and refrain from encouraging the Parties in Fiji that oppose the People’s Charter to continue to hope that the situation before December 2006 can be restored.

The Interim government has been asking for support from the international community to build a stronger foundation for return to Parliamentary democracy. This necessarily means that reform, such as that of the Electoral system, need to be implemented first, out of respect of the will of the majority of Fiji’s people who supported the People’s Charter.

Need to Support for President’s Dialogue Forum and UN Commwealth initiative. The Pacific Islands Forum should be consistent and support the consensus building amongst Political Parties and the President’s Dialogue Forum and leave to this internal process the decision on when to have the Election in Fiji. Continuation of sanctions and suspension of aid will not change the course that the interim government has taken. It is time for the international community to support Fiji’s way forward because there is no other way. Millbrook and Biketawa have not been constructive guidelines as far as Fiji is concerned and need to be reviewed in the light of experience. Fiji is not in breach of international laws. Fiji only wants to alter the timeline for Elections so we can build a firmer foundation for political stability going forward.

Suspension of Fiji from the Forum will also be at odds with the Forum’s support for the Joint UN Commonwealth initiative to facilitate political dialogue towards agreement amongst stake holders in Fiji. The Pacific Islands Forum will be wise to wait until the Joint Commonwealth UN Team complete their work. This will take some time.

Fiji has its sovereign right as an independent nation to decide its national interest and to expect other countries to respect that right and support changes, where possible, that will enable Fiji to be a good and co-operative member of the Commonwealth, the Pacific Islands Forum and the United Nations.

How Fiji deals with its problems could be an example to the international community of how a deeply divided country can resolve serious conflicts peacefully, lawfully and democratically.

*Jone Dakuvula is a former member of the Support Secretariat of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji** and previously worked for the Citizen’s Constitutional Forum (CCF))

.