Fiji 2011: Critical Engagement and Future Scenarios (Part I) - Akuila Yabaki

Speech given by the Rev Akuila Yabaki Chief Executive Officer, Citizens' Consitutional Forum, in February 2011 during his New Zealand tour. I consider it the most important paper to be written on Fiji this year. Photo: Rev Yabaki and Croz Walsh, Wellington, February 2011.

 

Part I. Introduction, Militarization of Government and Critical Engagement

Introduction

The Fiji Court of Appeal ruling of 9 April 2009 in the case of Qarase versus Bainimarama, which was contrary to the Fiji High Court judgment of 10 October 2008, stated that under the 1997 Constitution Fiji’s President did not have the powers to dissolve Parliament and appoint the interim Fiji governments in December 2006 and January 2007. The Rulings went further to add that the President could only make those decisions on the advice of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Following this judgment, Interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama resigned from his position. A day later, then President the late Ratu Josefa Iloilo (purportedly) abrogated Fiji’s 1997 Constitution and reappointed Bainimarama and the Attorney General back to their positions. The other government ministers were also reappointed to their positions.

Decrees then became the order of the day creating a new legal and political order. The decrees in particular, placed limitations on the powers of the courts and entrenched decision-making powers in the Executive’s hands. Some of the decrees in content and intent sought to bring in genuine improvements, but others may violate human rights and good governance principles. A few have been introduced after public consultations, others without any or with very limited consultation. Apart from the good governance processes one major concern about the new decrees is the provision in many that the decisions made by the current government cannot be challenged in any court or tribunal in Fiji.

A Public Emergency Regulations (PER) Decree was imposed on 10 April 2009, which has been extended every 30 days since, and remains in place despite the complete lack of civil unrest in the country. The PER provides broad powers to police and military officers to search premises and arrest and detain people from two to seven days. The PER also provides powers to the disciplined forces to stop any meetings or public gatherings. Organisations now have to apply for a permit for any event that requires a gathering of people. The PER further gives powers to the Permanent Secretary for Information to apply censorship to any print or broadcast material which they do not want the public to see and hear.

The PER has effectively provided control to the Bainimarama government on the kind of messages being relayed to the grassroots population in Fiji. It has effectively stopped the general population from being aware of any criticism of the government and of any opposing actions being organized against the government. In the absence of free uncensored media which allows for public opinion to be aired and which at its best gave government an array of perspectives from the citizens the emergence of blog sites tended to dominate as a medium for expressing opinion. Blog sites have become the new medium for propaganda and the cancellation of the CCF Human Rights march last year highlighted the fact that they are effective and that worse still the State, political opinion-makers and monitors do seek out the blog site insights.

The ongoing imposition of PER reflects government’s fear of opposition in the form of a contradictory opinion. This does not allow government to assess whether or not it is performing well or properly addressing the needs of its people. This remains the single most key issue that does not allow for sustainable reform or change. CCF will continue to advocate for its lifting. In the critical time leading up to possible political dialogue and the ongoing reforms citizens must be allowed to participate in the change and fundamental to this participation is the freedom to express views and opinions which may be contradictory and at the same time focused on peace.

In this talk, I will give a brief overview of the militarization of the Fiji government that has taken place since the 5 December 2006 takeover. I will then examine issues of critical engagement and discuss some of the future scenarios for Fiji.

Militarization of the Fiji Government since December 2006

At the years end 2010 according to our monitoring of government institutions it is known that 67 per cent of Fiji’s government ministries have military personnel in senior positions, where senior is defined as the Minister, or head of unit with second in charge decision making authority below the Minister; 32 serving military personnel have been appointed to the cabinet and civil service; 15 military appointments have been made to Statutory Boards and Government or Quasi Government Institutions; and 65 per cent of the national budget is under the authority of a military minister. 93 percent of the Capital component of the budget under the same. This represents known appointments only, however, given that military titles are no longer being used in the government gazettes, the actual extent of militarization of the government and civil service may be greater. Nonetheless, it is clear that the level of militarization is quite pervasive. Of the total 21 Ministries, only eight currently have no known military presence in a senior decision making capacity.

It must be raised, however, that the sanctions imposed by Australia and New Zealand on civilians taking up positions within the current government have no doubt contributed to the high number of military appointments. The extension of travel bans to not only individuals but also their family members has acted as a significant deterrent from many qualified civilians applying to governmental roles. As military personnel and their families are, on the other hand, already subject to such sanctions, there is no further penalty applicable for them filling vacant civil service posts.

What is more, there does not appear to be any significant trend over time towards increasing or decreasing levels of militarization. A number of shuffles and changes to Permanent Secretary appointments can be observed, however have not significantly altered the proportionate level of militarization. In the second half of 2010, we have the move of the civilian Permanent Secretary for Finance to Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Fiji Sugar Corporation; the return to barracks of the military Chief Registrar and the dismissal of the Director of Public Prosecutions with civilian Sri-Lankan appointments made in their place, and the ‘resignation’ of the military Police Commissioner with a further military replacement appointment made. Currently the Prisons, Police top positions are headed by Military personnel. Most recently, with effect from November 15^th, the military PS for Lands returned to the barracks for reasons cited as a need to strengthen the Fiji Military Forces. He has since been given the appointment of Commissioner Eastern which covers areas of Lomaiviti and Lau. The former Police Commissioner has since taken up appointment as the Head of Mission in China.

The question that begs to be answered, however, is what does this mean for Fiji and the state of governance of the country? An answer to this critical question, and ability to assess the level of efficiency, effectiveness and capability of these military officers to manage government institutions, is difficult in the absence of transparent information to enable the citizens of Fiji to hold its government to account. Public Accounts Committee Reports have been withheld from public disclosure since 2007, a number of decrees continue to contain provisions which specifically preclude any challenge or question of the validity, legality or propriety of Ministerial and Executive decisions. Suppression of Freedom of Opinion and Expression in relation to governmental activities has now also been entrenched through promulgation of the Media Industry Development Decree in June 2010. Indeed, reports have been received that newsrooms are now self-censoring and automatically discarding any information they perceive the government censors will not like – including that coming from CCF. There is therefore very little space left for objective and factual information on government performance to reach the public, or other concerned organizations, to facilitate unbiased analysis.

Whilst a number of positive intentions can be found in the People’s Charter for Peace, Change and Progress, and indeed some positive initiatives undertaken such as the adoption of the name ‘Fijian’ for all citizens, the concern of CCF is the way in such reforms are being implemented. As per good governance principles, CCF is of the view that the recommendations in the People’s Charter should only be implemented through an open and inclusive dialogue process. To the contrary, however, the governments Reforms under the Strategic Framework for Change are unfortunately being imposed under an environment that maintains restrictions on the citizens basic rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to:

• Article 18 Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
• Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Expression
• Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
• Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the Above Rights

Critical Engagement

So how does one engage with such a government? CCF is of the view that, despite the concerns articulated above, it is essential if concrete progress towards the restoration of democracy, active citizenship and fundamental human rights is to be achieved, that a strategy of constructive and critical engagement is pursued. Attempts to isolate Commodore Bainimarama and his militarized government, both internally and externally, have been ineffective and Bainimarama has made it clear he will not compromise on his governments Roadmap. Internally, organizations following a policy of non-engagement have been ‘blacklisted’ resulting in severe restrictions on activities and intimidation of staff; and externally policies of isolation such as that being followed by Australia have become unsustainable as Fiji instead pursues a ‘look North’ policy. As noted by Duncan Kerr during a recent Lowy Institute Seminar, Australia needs to rethink its policies on Fiji and show some goodwill in supporting the Fiji government’s plans to hold elections in 2014 if it is to effectively exert any influence over the current state of affairs.

CCF, in a letter submitted to the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Summit in Port Vila, Vanuatu on 5^th August, 2010, noted that the date of elections appears to be of primary importance to the international community, however there needs to be a greater understanding of the core problems that Fiji is trying to tackle and that cannot be addressed by simply returning to quick elections. One example is the race-based communal electoral system, which has failed to deliver social cohesion and inter-ethnic cooperation, and which has perpetuated the racial divide within the Fiji society, as well as paralysed attempts to resolve major socio-economic and political problems facing the country. Many of these problems stem back to the colonial days of ‘divide and rule’ and call for home-based solutions.

Political dialogue and electoral reform prior to the election in 2014 is essential and will hopefully assist towards achieving a durable and sustainable people-based mandate for future governments in the next 15-20 years. To get this process back off the ground, and ensure that it is genuine and inclusive, it is necessary to critically engage in goodwill with the current government. The possibilities from such an approach are evidenced through the successful Track 2 dialogue initiatives, such as Dialogue Fiji and CPAD, which have been successfully instigated with broad participation from communities, government, military officers, and civil society. Dialogue Fiji, for example, has been running for the last 18 months to facilitate the creation of a network of community leaders to continue the dialogue on issues with a focus on long term sustainable solutions. Through this process, space has been created to start linking open and inclusive civil society dialogue to the national level.

A further example of positive steps taken towards dialogue has been the ‘Land & Tenant Dialogue’ organized by CCF, with participation of key government and non-government stakeholders to critically assess and discuss the Land Reforms introduced under the Lands Decree 2010. One was held in the West , Lautoka in 2010 and another planned to be convened at Labasa for the North on the 17 and 18 March this year.

CCF remains steadfastly opposed to the government takeover of 2006. Nonetheless, CCF along with a number of other Fiji NGOs has taken a solution-oriented approach in working with the current government in Fiji and we call on the international community to do the same. We are adamant in our view that military coups and dictatorships cannot be condoned, and we have been prompt in our public criticism of some of the measures and policies adopted by the current government of Fiji. However, we are equally firm in continuing with our position of critical engagement where possible with the current government.

Four years on from the 2006 coup, and midway to the promised elections in 2014, it is essential that only through a strategy of critical engagement will Australia and other international partners be able to effectively influence the current government for positive change. Indeed the history of the past four years supports that it is only through critically engaging that gradual yet concrete steps can be taken and achieved towards enabling greater citizen participation; and bridging the gap between a military top-down style of reform and one which provides the space for open, honest and inclusive dialogue.

CSO’s are gaining some traction partly due to the developing trust through the dialogue processes and the recent suspension of the Village Bylaws following strong opposition by the CSOs on issues of Human Rights indicates that government is looking towards including the views of CSOs.

Part II will be published next Saturday.