Fiji Election Outcomes: Some Preliminary Thoughts and Opinions

BREAKING NEWS. Sitiveni Rabuka has resigned as leader of SODELPA but the resignation has not been accepted by the party.  He says the leader of a party that loses an election should resign. Whatever the outcome, he will retain his seat in parliament.   Another announcement is that Lynda Tabuya will be the SODELPA Whip.
_________________

pn175

SODELPA and NFP have accepted the election result but are considering whether there is a legal case to contest the outcome. Blogger Joe Gonewai, one of Ro Teimumu's team,  thinks FijiFirst should form a caretaker government until the outcome of the possible legal appeal is known.



AssocProfessor of Political Science at Australia's Charles Sturt University,  Dominic O'Sullivan, a NZer of Maori descent,   writing in The Conversation, said Bainimarama's win was helped to the muzzling of the media, the unions and the  (Methodist) church. "The  Methodist Church which preaches a strong indigenous nationalism and has been a leading influence" is previous election results (sic!).  

However he thinks the "unprecedented number of government initiatives rolled out across the country in the last four years should have been enough to carry FijiFirst to a bigger majority. He thinks Fiji politics beyond Bainimarama are "uncertain, unpredictable and insecure."

Unsuccessful NFP candidate and trade unionist Attar Singh puts his finger on why government initiatives were insufficient. He says the election was more about race and emotion than policy and the cost of living.   

I think he's right,  but the term "race" is too simple an explanation.  

Many Indo-Fijians voted for FijiFirst because it has done more for them than most previous governments. They feel far more secure than they would with a SODELPA government, even one with a NFP junior partner.

Many Taukei, however,  felt their ethnic identity had been undermined by FijiFirst— and SODELPA lost no opportunity to promote this belief.  They went along with SODELPA's claim of insufficient consultation for changes; the abolition of Fijian institutions including the Great Council of Chiefs, the Fiji Affairs Board and the Native Land Trust Board; threats to Taukei land ownership, and the  common name Fijian that had previously belonged to them.  

They believed these accusations and did not heed FijiFirst's claim nothing threatened Taukei land or cultural identity. 

Or that the changes were made so that all citizens would be equally and fairly, promote stability, and unify Fiji.  Listen to the Rabuka v. Bainimarama debate on StraightTalk if you are in any doubt.  

The concerns are real. But the reasons for them are not.

However,  I think there should have been more consultation and public involvement in decision-making.  Government policies and intentions should have been given more attention on the radio and TV.  FijiFirst should have campaigned more in rural and Taukei areas instead of relying on development policies that have helped Taukei in these areas.

Without such involvement and campaigning, it was only too easy for SODELPA to raise "false concerns", especially when they were assisted by a more outspoken social media. 


I shall elaborate on these thoughts in a rolling analysis over the next few days.

-- ACW