It Would be Laughable If It Were Not So Pathetic

By Crosbie Walsh

Having protested, for the past six years, that the Bainimarama government is illegal — and having refused invitations by the "illegal" government to join discussions on the People's Charter, and having then opposed every move by the government (the Roadmap, the setting up of the Constitution Commission,  names for the Constituent Assembly) and having, more recently, declined to attend  public meetings on the Government's draft constitution — the United Front for a Democratic Fiji has now challenged Government to a televised public  debate on "the merits and demerits on the Peoples Draft and the 2013 Regime Draft." (If here in Godzone the Wellington Hurricanes had thought up the idea, it  would have challenged John Key in similar fashion years ago, and the "Cake Tin* would have become the Beehive**)

The so called "Peoples Draft" is that proposed by the Ghai Commission whose appointment and work they opposed from day one. Only when, contrary to their expectations, the Commission's draft was known to include recommendatons contrary to Government wishes did the elements of the newly formed UFDF (mainly the old political parties) do an about-face and embrace the Ghai draft in toto.

This was also a surprise because many of the draft's provisions were counter to what they said they wanted for Fiji when they made their submissions to the Commission. The most obvious was the mainly iTauekei SDL submission that wanted to increase the political influence of the Great Council of Chiefs and retain the special provisions for the iTaukei establishment, and the insistence by both the SDL and the mainly Indo-Fijian FLP that Fiji retain race-based electorates. 

Yet some who are now involved in  the UFDF, notably the NFP, some trade unionists and former UPP's Mike Beddoes, wanted the Government's one man, one vote, one value system  and the abolition of race-based parties, electorates and voting. This raises the question of why they have now joined with the SDL in the UFDF. One might have expected them to spell out where they agree and disagree with those with whom they now share the same bed.

Graham Davis (see link)  has discussed why Government rejected the Ghai draft and I will not repeat his reasons here, but one issue was that in recommending a National Peoples Assembly to oversee parliament, the Commission was giving more power to an unelected "public" than it gave to the elected parliament. Why the UFDF would support such a recommendation and why Government would reject it may seem to be based on principle, and perhaps in part it is. But there's a more mundane explanation. The "public" would include a significant number of NGO leaders and others from among the urban elite who have been most outspoken against the Bainimarama government. Both Government and the UFDF are fully aware of this.

The Ghai draft also provided Government opponents with another "window of opportunity" in proposing that the Bainimarama Government step aside prior to the 2014 election. In a televised debate, it could be reasonably argued that this would prevent Government from interfering with the election process. But, again, the issue is who exactly would take over the reins, and the answer is the same: the vocal urban elite who are sympathetic to many of the demands of the UFDF because they are concerned about the loss of freedoms under the Bainimarama government.

In their statement, the UFDF said "the local and regional media should be permitted to broadcast the debates and people should be allowed to vote at the end of each debate and the winner declared.... The UFDF is keen to engage in these debates so as to allow the people to hear both sides of the argument at the same time, and be able to make an informed decision."

All this is superficially laudable except for the popularity vote and the notion that by hearing both sides people would make an informed decision. The fact is that television is not an appropriate medium for informed debate. It can touch on issues, some claims and information can be exchanged and contradicted, and it can project the personality of the speakers, but for most people it will merely confirm their prior views if, indeed, they understand all that has been said in a debate conducted in English. 

It would have been better, if the UFDF is serious about the debate and not simply making a seemingly reasonable proposal that will be rejected, had they proposed debates in the main languages with team of three lead, for example, by the PM (with Ratu Inoke Kubuabola) v. Ratu Jone Kubuabola (with Tupeni Baba) in the iTaukei language; the Attorney General v. Mahendra Chaudhry (with Attar Singh) in Fiji Bhaat; and the A-G v. Mike Beddoes in English. A debate in English is targeted at the educated, urban elite and would probably do more to confuse than enlighten the average citizen.

But this and the UFDF debates will not happen.  

The sole political issue facing Fiji at the present time is whether to accept the draft proposals of the Bainimarama Bovernment and its plans for a fairer, more equal and less racially-orientated, or to accept the proposals of the likes of the UFDF.

Equality v. Freedoms

Neither will result in a perfect democracy.  The Bainimarama option will result in a "limited democracy" where equality is more important than freedoms. The UFDF option will result in returning Fiji to another form of a limited democracy where the freedoms enjoyed by the UFDF, the educated, urban elite and middle class (and not enjoyed by grassroots Fiji) are more important than racial and socio-economic equality.

Individual members of the UFDF can still play a useful role in shaping Fiji's future, but their latest gimmick is pathetic.  They must know it will not be accepted. And they must know their proposal will further destabilise the political situation, keeping people apart who should be talking with each other. Many, however,  will see their proposal as evidence that Bainimama is indeed correct: too many in the opposition are pushing their own agendas with little concern for Fiji's future. Having once tasted power, they are loath to give up, and they quite understandably have doubts about whether they will be elected in 2014.  

This is especially so for  two UFDF members, Tupeni Baba and Mick Beddoes, who have shifted sides and renounce their earlier multi-racial principles in order to gain a larger support base by joining the reformed SDL. Without this support, they will be nobodies in 2014. 

They may be nobodies anyway but if they and other members of the UFDF wish to be somebodies in 2014, they need to rethink their tactics. Use the momentum of the opposing player and avoid head on  tackles.

 _________________________________________________________________

* Popular name given to the sports arena built on railway land close to Wellington's CBD, and the Hurricanes home ground.

** Beehive, popular name given to the beehive-shaped Parliamentary Building.