Whistling in the Wind: "Brave But Futile Attempts"

For months now this blog has urged those opposed to the Bainimarama government to be realistic. This is not because I approve of everything government has done —far from it— or because I am in the pay of the military junta or the PR company Qorvis as some have claimed I am, but because it should be evident to anyone with any knowledge of Fiji, the RFMF or, indeed, human behaviour, that this government does not respond well to threats. Whatever the obstacles, it will not abandon its stated goals.

Responses to Government's intended redrafting of the "Ghai" draft constitution are also human. No one likes to be pushed around and abandon their stated goals. All but two published reactions reflect this mentality. 

 The exceptions come from former commissioner Peni Moore who expressed disappointment that the draft was not put to the Constituent Assembly for them to change if they thought fit, and from the Citizen's Constitution Forum that limited itself to asking Government to review its position. (Australian Jenny Hayward-Jones also adopts a moderate position. See immediately preceding post). 

The opposition reaction
Others are less circumspect. The FLP website calls upon the media to "do its duty without fear," saying the government action is "a ruse to prolong the rule of those in power." Ratu Tevita Mara says the same. Fiji Live reports former Labour Government Deputy PM and now SDL member Tupeni Baba as saying the Government decision is unacceptable and a "slap in the face of all right thinking people...and an affront to our intelligence. The FTUC is appealing to the international community to put pressure on the Bainimarama government. NFP's Pramod Rae says he has "lost faith in the process." NZ has expressed disappointment. Col. Tikoitoga says Fiji will ignore NZ. And so it goes on.

Persuading Government they are not the enemy
If civil society or an overseas government wish to make any impression —and have any positive influence on events— they must first persuade government they are not its enemy. This, of course, is easier said than done for Government has shown itself to be incredibly inept in distinguishing between critical support and critical opposition.

The same might be said of some Government opponents. They persist in repeating the same accusations, deepening the rift between them and government, as if to make absolutely sure that even their sound advice goes unheeded. 

More often, they offer no advice and make no realistic demands. Their words are not addressed to government but to their supporters to maintain their support and fan the flames of mistrust. 

They fight their battle, not up front around a table, but through scathing printed and verbal releases to the Fiji media, the overseas media, and the numerous anti-Bainimarama blogs. Self-interest is only too apparent. There are exceptions, of course, people and organizations who are genuine democrats who have been forced into the camp of the devious though government's failure to distinguish between friends and enemies.

The whole sorry saga of how government and its opponents have handled what has become known as the  Ghai  draft constitution demonstrates the one thing they have in common: their shared inability to use unfolding situations to their own advantage.

Government needs to persuade, too
If Government wishes to maintain and increase its support among Fiji's thinking population, it must do more to take them into its confidence and involve them more in decision-making. Appointments to the Constituent Assembly is an obvious starting point, but it could start earlier than this. It could even initiate  closed doors face-to-face meetings with its opponents and the undecided, starting with the more reasonable.  

Opponents need to re-think their tactics
If Government opponents wish to influence outcomes, they need to re-think their tactics. Forming a coalition of political parties will have no impact until the 2014 elections. Many people are disillusioned with the old political parties, and it is questionable how long such a coalition would last. 

Their best path is though the Constituent Assembly. They are unlikely to be able to bring about a major constitutional shifts but they could get a number of draft provisions modified. The second-to-last thing they should be doing is to further discredit the Assembly, and the last is hoping or working for its collapse.

For the moment, they should be considering what the Solicitor-General's office is likely to change in the YG draft. The A-G's press releases give some hints. He talks of a constitution that is "simple" and uncomplicated; that will not result in endless debate in the Assembly; that does not contradict reforms made by the Government for "the way forward ... next year's elections and ...a true democracy."

When the A-G talks about simplicity, uncomplicated and endless debate he may, as opponents will claim, be talking about parts of the draft that were unacceptable to government for "political" reasons. This is highly likely but we should not assume this to be the only reason" parts may also not be acceptable for "legal" reasons.

Parts of the draft lack "internal coherence," one part contradicts or minimises another. Independent institutions, for example, like the police and Director of Public Prosecutions office, should be kept independent, and not made dependent on the Public Service Commission. Another lack of internal coherence in the draft is the influence of a large and unelected National People's Assembly over the elected Parliament. And yet another, the failure to deal appropriately with the President's emergency powers. The latter has been the subject of expensive litigation after each coup. There is now an opportunity to get it right in a way that gives the President the necessary powers but in a way that upholds democracy.

Part of the trouble here is that "internal coherence" involves complex legal issues that are not really suitable for debate by lay people. They should have been resolved by the Commission. How this will be resolved, with a lay chairperson, is difficult to see.

It was hoped that most issues could be resolved by consensus in the Constituent Assembly. This was always going to be difficult (Think Great Council of Chiefs, the appointment of the President and members of the several recommended commissions, and the question of immunity) but it will now be much more difficult with the reopening of wounds.

Constituent Assembly holds the key
It is expected that work on the revised draft will be complete by the end of the month ready for discussion by the yet-to-be appointed Assembly next month.

 Meanwhile, it is hoped that those opposing Government do not project themselves so far out on the limb that they risk losing contact with events, and throw away opportunities to influence outcomes. 

Their present position seems to be to dismiss the Constituent Assembly. It seems likely they will try to dissuade people from joining the Assembly and heap personal inventive on those who do. My guess is that they will find unacceptable whoever is appointed as Chairperson. This is what we can expect from their track record.

I suggest they hold back at least some of their fire until they have seen the new amended draft. They should then compare it with the Ghai draft, try to understand Government's reasons for the changes, and then, outside and inside the Constituent Assembly they should work on what can be changed. 

Over the next few months they should not be beating drums to win votes in 2014. That can come later. For now they need to work on what can be achieved for Fiji.

Note: I hope to publish an analysis of the Ghai draft over the next few days.