What the FijiFirst Government Can Do, Starting Now, to Win the Next Election

An image to foster. pn269 (Renumbered from pn179)

In a curious way, the opposing visions of Sitiveni Rabuka and Voqere Bainimarama that we discussed in an earlier posting (pn182) are examples of what the famous English writer George Orwell* called "doublethink", the ability to hold two completely contradictory thoughts simultaneously while believing both of them to be true. Rabuka wants Taukei supremacy, Bainimarama restrains public debate to ensure equality, and they both think they are being democratic.

The question now is how to reduce the doublethink to improve their party's chances in the 2022 election, and put an end to Fiji's coup culture.

People's Charter Pillar 1: For Discussion

My thanks to the reader who suggested a regular weekly posting on each of the eleven pillars of the People's Charter that will enable all readers to consider each pillar carefully, offer their opinions and comment on what has been done —and what yet needs to be done—to implement them. Here in the first week is Pillar 1. Please use the opportunity to comment and exchange opinions with other readers. Please try to comment over the next seven days. Pillar 2 will be published next Saturday.

---- N192A ----

Postscript. I have added Chapter 1 of the State of the Nation paper 

on the recommended electoral reforms  at the end of Pillar 1.

PEOPLE'S CHARTER

PILLAR I

ENSURING SUSTAINABLE DEMOCRACY AND GOOD

AND JUST GOVERNANCE¹

Critical Problems and Issues:

A fair and just Constitution is the basis of good governance. However, a Constitution that divides the people and separates them, which does not provide for equal opportunities, can be neither fair nor just. The world community, in declarations and treaties expressing the highest ideals, has opposed racism and injustice. We the people of Fiji are all too aware of the harm racial division has to our country. We declare, through this Peoples Charter, our commitment to a Fiji free from all forms of discrimination.

Democracy must be entrenched in our Constitution in accord with our pledge to rebuild a Better Fiji for All: one nation, one people with a common identity and shared destiny.

Why the Roadmap? The Politics under the Bridges Part III

                                               By Crosbie Walsh

Government opponents have made much of the fact that the Roadmap has not yet been published and released for pubic scrutiny, and some have doubted its existence. I have no doubt the Roadmap exists in draft form, sufficient for government planning but clearly not sufficient for release.

I suspect Government reasoning, as in all else they have done, is that the Roadmap and the Strategic Framework for Change (that also has not been published) are operational documents based on the well known principles of the People's Charter. Publication for the general public is therefore not a priority at this time. 

If this is the case, it demonstrates government's step-by-step approach to change. First, the infrastructural changes discussed in Part I, followed by the constitutional and electoral changes that require public participation and the publication, if by then if it has any residual relevance, of the Roadmap. We should know the answer by the end of this year.

The purpose of this three-part article is to set the everyday actions and statements of Government within the broad framework of the People's Charter in order to reveal the main elements of the Roadmap and their likely outcomes. Thus, in Part I we discussed the hoped for political outcomes (the “winning of hearts and minds”) of the infrastructural reforms (the politics under the bridges) and  in Part II the sorts of changes that are likely, because of perceived shortcomings in the 1997 Constitution, to be part of the constitutional reforms. 

In this, the concluding section, I itemise and comment on the likely electoral changes and their intended purposes.

Registrations, Aust-NZ-US-Fiji Relations, Elections and the Constitution, Youth and Grassroots Empowerment

Stray dog waiting registration

REGISTRATIONS RAISE SOME QUESTIONS

Government needs to spell out the positives and 

provide  assurances on the negatives. 

Fiji seems to be having a bout of registration mania with everything except stray dogs now requiring registration. The need to register higher education institutions is obvious. It is surprising it was not always a requirement and yet only nine of the nation's 75 institutions are so far registered.

The Telephone Service Decree also makes sense requiring telephone and mobile phone users to register, and for this the deadline runs out next Sunday. But the details required raises concern, and could easily be abused by the authorities. Those registering are required to provide their name,date of birth, permanent home address (or address in Fiji if visiting), photo identification and parent or guardian's signature if the customer is below 18 years of age.But now we hear that the government wants those with driver's licences and bank accounts for similar information and their Tax Identification Number. Again, this makes sense.

In New Zealand telecommunications companies, the Transport Authority and the individual banks collect these or similar details, as does the Department of Inland Revenue. The police, the secret service, the Courts, the IRD and many others may request specific information, and in some instances demand it.  What is of concern in Fiji is that this information may be combined into one large database to which Government may have unrestricted access. But even if, like New Zealand, the information must be requested and then only in relation to specific charges against identified individuals, such powers available to the Fiji Government is the present political situation must raise major questions and concerns. The obvious question is will they be used to target their opponents and even people who agree, but not totally, with what they are doing?

Registration, probably influenced by Singapore's one-ID number system, has many positives but the potential negatives are very worrying. Government needs to spell out the positives and provide  assurances on the negatives. And people need to dial the PM on 01 and write to the media until there are answers.

OLD AND NEW FRIENDS. Commenting on PM Bainimarama's hint that Fiji would turn its back on its old friends Australian and NZ and look increasingly to China for support, Auckland University political scientist AssocProf Stephen Hoadley thinks Bainimarama "misdirected." Fiji still needs AustNZ. He says humanitarian aid still comes from AustNZ, and cutting further links could result in Europe and the US following suit, which in turn could lead to a deterioration of infrastructure and --  a drop in tourism. [That's a long drop!]  As for China, it wants to keep Taiwan isolated and Fiji's vote in the UN General Assembly. Its support for Fiji is arbitrary and could be withdrawn if Fiji's political support is not forthcoming.

Comment.  Prof Hoadley is half right in one assertion: Fiji definitely needs AustNZ support -- but not at any price and it is not a one-way need: that's the other half.  These countries  have already done much to divide the Pacific Islands Nations and damage the Fiji economy  and they could still do much more -- for better or for worse.  But Fiji is not the aid-dependent portrayed in our media. Our  trade with and investment in Fiji is very profitable.  I'm also amused that Prof Hoadley doesn't see the irony in his comment that China's support is arbitrary and could be withdrawn unless Fiji does what it expects. Isn't this exactly what has already happened with AustNZ support?

AMERICAN SAMOA REP. CRITICAL OF AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND. Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr.is the non-voting Delegate to the United States House of Representatives.
"I've been very critical of New Zealand and Australia's approach to engaging Fiji," he says. "Of course we all don't agree with Fiji not having a democratic form of government but I also believe that we have to appreciate and understand the complexities facing Fiji. New Zealand and Australia's approach to punish Fiji has caused some 'bad developments.'

Fiji is not like other countries in the islands  because of its colonial past the multi-ethnic society. Faleomavaega says what's reported in the mainstream media is not necessarily what's happening in Fiji.  "One of the things that is really amazing is the way the media played Fiji being under a military administration. You'd think that there are barriers on the roads/streets with police, military army and soldiers all over the place. You don't see one, not in Nadi not in Suva. And here's the one thing that is really surprising, the tourism industry in Fiji is going by leaps and bounds."

"We [the USA] don't have a policy towards PI countries, our policy only includes Australia and New Zealand. And whatever New Zealand and Australia want done, we just simply follow it. I totally disagree with that." --Press release,Faleomavaega's office,12 August.

AN ELECTORAL SYSTEM OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION? The abrogated 1997 Constitution spelt out almost every detail of Fiji's electoral system, making changes impossible without the lengthy process of changing the Constitution. In the future this may be very different.

Strategic Framework for Change Coordinator Lote Raboila says  “The proposal is that the electoral system be removed from the Constitution and enacted as law so that it may be a separate law, and may be amended and reformed from time to time according to the will of the people. However the fundamental recommendation of non-ethnic voting, equal franchise and proportional representation be enshrined into the constitution. Therefore the electoral law itself be outside the constitution so that the government of the day may make amendments and reform according to the time to suit the condition with the regards to the will of the people.”

Youth and Grassroots Empowerment
Democracy without such initiatives is diminished.

YOUTH DIALOGUE. A one-day youth workshop organized by ECREA last week focused on dialogue in peace building, inner dialogue and self awareness, youth empowerment in nation building and an exhibition. Co-ordinator Waisale  Ramoce said the objective was to educate young people on the importance of dialogue as a tool that would create peaceful co-existence among different ethnic groups in Fiji. He said, "For a multicultural nation like Fiji, the appreciation of cultural and religious diversity is very much needed. To engage young people in appreciating differences through dialogue and mutual understanding will undoubtedly create the way forward to a peaceful and happy nation. It reinforces the need to have young people partake in decision-making on nation building."

FCOSS AND FINANCIAL LITERACY. So far this year the Fiji Council of Social Services Microfinance Unit has  conducted 15 financial literacy training workshops in 15 communities (5 villages in Namosi, 5 women’s groups, 3 youth groups and 2 Indo-Fijian communities) involving over 400 people. By year end they plan to conduct another 25. The workshops, aimed at rural and disadvantaged people, teach people how to manage their money and generate income. Each community had requested the training.

REWA YOUTH EMPOWERMENT WORKSHOP. A two-day workshop organized by the Department of Youth (a new Government initiative) saw 120 young people from nine Rewa tikina (districts) meet at Nakorovou in Dreketi on Thursday last week. They were taught on the twelve seeds of success, aimed at improving personal development of youths in areas of time management, self discipline and positive mental attitude. The workshop also aimed at reviving the Rewa Provincial Youth Council.A three-member medical team was also present conducting free medical checks.-- Based on 2010 No:1231/MOI.

(B) Election Formats: Part I Narsey on Proportional Representation and the List System

In this two-part series USP economics Prof. Wadan Narsey and I come to rather different conclusions on the possible outcomes of electoral reform. Wadan's two related articles, Electoral Reform Not about Racial Justice and Does the Military Really Want Electoral Reform? were previously published by Pacific Scoop. I abridge and summarize their contents here with a link to the originals. Part II Walsh New Election Playing Fields and Outcomes will be published next week.

Snippets: Vatukoula, Fatiaki, Evangelizing, Chaudhry, Rotuma Acts, Media Impartiality

Going For Gold. For an update on the troubled gold industry and the mining town of Vatukoula, and plans for the future, click here.

Fatiaki joins Madraiwiwi in Vanuatu. Former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki, removed from office by Bainimarama in 2006 on charges that were later withdrawn, is the new Chief Justice in Vanuatu. Fatiaki is one of a number of Rotumans who have distinguished themselves in a number of private and public positions in Fiji. [Rotuma, annexed by Britain in 1881 and today part of Fiji, is 500km north of Lautoka. Culturally distinct from ethnic Fijians, Rotumans in Rotuma and Fiji proper were represented in parliament by one MP.The island is administered by a council of elected members and chiefs which nominated one member of the Fiji Senate.]

Rotuma Acts Reviewed. Marieta Rigamoto, Rotuman former Information Minister, thinks Government's decision to review the Rotuma Act and the 1959 Rotuma Lands Act is a great opportunity for Rotumans to comment on legislation that was "not accepted by the people ...I think it's about time. I'm thankful and grateful that the review has started", she said. Based on Fiji Times article. Former Rotuma district officer and resident magistrate Fred Susau said it was high time a review was done on the legislation which have been in existence since the 1930's and 1950's. He said the most problematic issues in the land tenure system were the determination of customary ownership, land boundaries and provision of funds to carry out the survey. "The review should consider special provisions and reforms for the improvement of its administration and court systems on the island ... It should provide better and efficient services such as law and order, health and education as well as the composition and functions of the Council of Rotuma." Based on Fiji Times article.

All Faiths May Evangelize. Police Commissioner Cde Esala Teleni has given the green light to all faiths in the country to carry out evangelism in any police post or station in the country. Police believed that this is one way of reaching out to vulnerable youths and families. They credit the religious "crusades" for a 20% drop in the crime rate for the first six months this year. The Crusade is one of the five pillars the Police Force will resort to fight crime in the country. Click here.

Chaudhry Thinks Baininmarama's Priorities All Wrong. Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry thinks Bainimarama's "Strategic Framework for Change" has got the timing of its priorities "all wrong if it thought it could shelve a resolution to the country’s political crisis for three years while it focused on economic and infrastructure development. We should have learnt from our recent past just how important political stability is for economic well being. Unless we have a stable, inclusive and democratic political environment acceptable to the international community and our development partners, it will be very difficult to create the investor confidence necessary to stimulate private sector growth," Chaudhry said. To read the Coupfourpointfive account, that includes criticism of Chaudhry, click here. The FLP website address.

Media Impartiality: Well and Truly Gone? Coupfourpointfive claims Radio Fiji and Communications Fiji Ltd - which operates five radio stations - two Hindi, two English and one Fijian station, State-owned Radio Fiji, privately owned Legend FM and the Fiji Sun newspaper are "continuing to give prominence and prime air time" to the Bainimarama Government. "The last shreds of [their] neutrality, independence and impartiality ... has well and truly gone."
Comment: It does not seem too long ago, in the days of the so-called "free press," when Government's views were swamped by those of its opponents. None of those protesting now, did so then when only this blogsite published items on media bias.

(oB) Namosi House: What Goes Around Comes Around

POWERFUL NEW FEATURE: TRY OUT "SEARCH THE BLOG"

Money raised from ordinary Fijians by the country's 14 provincial councils, together with loans obtained from the Development Bank or another quasi-government entity, has often been invested in building multi-storey office blocks in Suva. Government sometimes guarantees these loans and the buildings once completed are often rented out to Government departments. What is left from the gross rentals goes towards provincial scholarships and similar "development" projects. For the most part it's been a "cosy" arrangement by which ethnic Fijian governments have fed money back to the Fijian "establishment."Those at the business-end of the arrangement benefit but few benefits trickle back to the villages where the initial money was raised. Only too often those entrusted with the money are accused of dishonest, corrupt, or at least questionable, behaviour. Whether this is the case with Namosi House* is unclear, but FijiLive thinks there is something a little strange. To read the whole article, click here. Read more...
The sheer number of overlapping ethnic Fijian and quasi-government public institutions (often with relatively inexperienced people handling large sums of money, and with too few checks and balances) creates untold opportunities for malpractice. What started as a means to increase the number of Fijians in business and assist rural development, has too often ended with a small number of people "milking the system" for personal gain. On wonders whether the business model needs revisiting.

* Namosi, some 40 or so kilometers west of Suva, is Fiji's smallest province, with limited natural resources. Under the 1997 Constitution, however, it had one Fijian Communal seat in Parliament for its 3,340 registered voters, the same number as Nadroga/Navosa with 19,044 registered voters (Walsh Fiji: an Encyclopaedic Atlas. See advert by scrolling down the left column.)Photo: Fiji Live.

(-+) Brij Lal’s Speech that Could have Been

Thanks once again to Coupfourpointfive, this time for publishing the address Prof. Brij Lal would have given to the Accountants' Conference had Government not decreed otherwise. Its publication by at least two blogs supports a point made in his speech: “The whole exercise of controlling speech is futile and self-defeating.” To read the full address on the topic of ‘Fiji and the International Community: Acceptance or Isolation: Are these the only choices?’ click here.

Summary

On Fiji's relations with the international community, his main points were: Fiji cannot go it alone; Australia, the EU and New Zealand want to help but need evidence of “progress” from Fiji; China's interests in Fiji are limited. “Many initiatives contemplated by the interim administration [IG] are praiseworthy, and I have no doubt that there would be a meeting of minds on many of them. That is why there is an urgent need of tact and diplomacy.”

He thought the situation had deteriorated sharply since April 10^th The Constitution has gone. The political dialogue process has ceased. “There is now no pretence about finding a solution to Fiji’s political problems in a timely fashion, in consultation with its friends in the regional and the international community. Fiji is now telling the world: we will find solutions to Fiji’s problems on our own terms, in our own time …. we are the guys who are on the right side of history; we are doing the right thing; why doesn’t the world understand us? “

On where Fiji should go from here, he said elections must be held earlier than 2014 if Fiji is to win international support. He agrees that elections alone will not solve Fiji's problems but asks what kind of political culture the Government want to create. He says a non-racial electoral system will not remove race as a factor in politics. He thinks the military want a permanent place in politics, and that their “utopia” will delay elections long after 2014. He says the Government should spell out what is wrong with the 1997 Constitution. He thought the Constitution’s compulsory power-sharing provision addressed “the most fundamental problem that has beset Fiji since the inception of party politics in 1966” in that it enabled one community, the Indo-Fijians, to share power. He said the Constitution was partly based on “‘Consociationalism … a grand coalition of elites representing different segments of society...”

My Comments

Brij blames the deteriorating situation on the Interim Government alone. No mention is made of the role of Australia and NZ, the Fiji media, the “Qarase” faction, and others who constantly placed obstructions in the IG's path.

Elections are not held to satisfy the international community. Fiji will only hold elections (hopefully before 2014) when the system under which they are to be held is decided upon, and when race has been removed as the factor. The Government has made quite clear the “political culture” it wants to create.

Brij continues to see Fiji's problems in purely racial terms. The 1997 Constitution was an improvement on the decidedly racist 1991 Constitution, but the Great Council of Chief's provision, the reinforcement of race by its electoral provisions, and the parliamentary “power sharing” provision effectively deprived Fiji of a parliamentary Opposition, need revisiting. True, future modifications were expected, but none occurred in the next ten years. His “grand coalition of elites” is based on racial “segments of society.” Fiji is, and can be, “segmented” in many more ways.

I do, however, share Brij's and many other people's concern about the never-ending role of the military in Fiji's politics. I also sometimes doubt their real intentions but, for the moment, they have the benefit of my doubt.

In sum, Brij warns of everything that has, and can, go wrong. Wisely so, perhaps, but we already know most of them. He supports an agenda rejected by the Interim government. I would like him to have proposed some new ideas on the “way forward.” Perhaps a hypothetical redrafting of the 1997 Constitution, with the benefit of hindsight, or the drafting of a new Constitution that would win wide support? Photo: Fiji Times.

My sincere apologies to Prof. Wadan Narsey....

.... for publishing incorrect comments on his Niukula lecture (post 28 April, The Horrifying Consequences of the Coup.) He is not, as I reported, "a long-standing NFP supporter or an opponent of FLP." Quite the contrary. He was a founding member of the FLP but left the party prior to the 1987 election, due to policy differences. He was a NFP MP from 1996-99, having stood unopposed on the NFP ticket, but as a joint candidate with the FLP. Since 1999 he has had no political affiliation. My reference to his brother-in-law Brij Lal might have suggested to readers that he supports the 1997 Constitution because of this relationship. This is not the case. He thought, and still thinks, the Alternative Vote electoral system advocated by the Reeves Commission, and later included in the 1997 Constitution, to be "disastrous for Fiji." Readers may read more of Wadan's views on electoral systems, coups and the economy on the USP website.

Electoral Commission chairperson Mohammed Kamal-Ud-Dean Sahu Khan died of a heart attack early on Saturday morning. Sahu Khan’s appointment as Electoral Commission chairman was announced in May 2007 together with three new commissioners. He was the only remaining member from the previous Electoral Commission.

The Election-Constitution Dilemma

(-o) Brij Lal on Why Only Parliament Can Amend the Constitution

Condensed from Fiji Sun article 2.2.08 . My emphasis.

Co-author of the Reeves Commission report which led to the 1997 Constitution, Professor Brij Lal, says only parliament can amend the Constitution. Anything else will have no legal validity. He says there are no shortcuts. The best course of action for the Commodore would be to put his proposed electoral changes before the President’s Forum for discussion by all stakeholders. Any consensus reached there could then be inserted into the constitution by a recalled parliament.

We know that the High Court has legitimised the appointment of the interim administration by the President through reserve powers derived by convention under common law (and that this ruling is being challenged in the Court of Appeal by ousted PM Laisenia Qarase) but the key question today is: How can the constitution be amended without a parliament? There is a constitutional crisis.

The current government says it wants to restore democratic rule but this can only be done by returning the nation to the polls. It is committed to elections but wants to amend the constitution so that the new electoral system is used.

Already the new electoral system has been supported by all the political parties. It is a fact the matter will be discussed at the President’s Political Dialogue Forum.

Former CEO of the PM's Office, Joji Kotobalavu offers a solution that may be acceptable to all parties:

"Once political consensus is reached on this new system of national elections, the President can invoke his emergency powers under the Constitution to reconvene the dissolved Parliament solely for the purpose of suspending the current electoral and multi-party provisions of the 1997 Constitution and to adopt the new system for the next elections.

The reconvened Parliament could also formalise other political agreements such as the ratification of the President’ promulgation on immunity, and the formation of a government of national unity after the elections, to bring about national unity and reconciliation, and, in conjunction with that, to undertake a comprehensive independent review of Fiji’ Constitution in all aspects.

This, said Prof Lal, is the only constitutional way to amend the constitution when parliament had already been dissolved, but if the Government's chief legal adviser, the Attorney General, thinks there is another way, he must tell the public.

Read the Constitution at this site
http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/database/poplaws/law_fiji/fiji_004.htm

(+oB)... But What a Constitution! Fact and Opinion
Crosbie Walsh

The Constitution Review Commission whose recommendations, after wide consultation and with some changes, became the 1997 Constitution Amendment Act, was "commissioned" by the Great Council of Chiefs in the aftermath of the 1987 Coup and the even more racially lopsided 1990 Constitution. The commissioners were New Zealander Sir Paul Reeves, ANU academic and former Fiji resident Prof. Brij Lal, and the late Tomasi Vakatora. Their recommendations were considered by the then PM Sitiveni Rabuka and the Leader of the Opposition, Jai Ram Reddy, unanimously endorsed by the Great Council of Chiefs, debated by a joint parliamentary committee, and finally put to the House for approval.

The preamble of the Constitution states (my emphasis): "In the interpretation of a provision of this Constitution ... regard must be had to the context in which this Constitution was drafted and to the intention that constitutional interpretation takes into account social and cultural developments, especially (a) developments in the understanding of the context of particular human rights; and (b) developments in the promotion of particular human rights."

Last Monday I sat down to re-read the 1997 Constitutional Amendment Act partly to see how the "context" had shaped the law but mainly to see whether Brij Lal or Voqere Bainimarama was correct. Could a fair and free election be held without breaching the Constitution, or could it not? Perhaps there was some legal loophole or ambiguity to support Bainimarama's position. Several hours later I was in no doubt. Elections along the lines proposed by the Interim Government can only be decreed by Parliament. Any other way is in breach of the Constitution. Brij Lal is correct.

So, where does this take us? One view, which supports the Interim Government position, is that the electoral system, and much else in the Constitution, could well breach basic human rights. Most people in Fiji accept the need to protect indigenous Fijian (and Rotuman and Banaban) "first nation" rights pertaining to land and custom, and even, within limits, to the retention of a parallel system of government, as spelt out in the Fijian Affairs Act, Fijian Development Fund Act, Native Lands Act, Native Lands Trust Act and other Acts, but their implementation should be transparent, and not used -- as they have so often been -- as a means to protect and embed the power and privilege of sections of the Fijian elite under the guise of protecting the interests of ordinary Fijians.

The constitution's political provisions are another matter altogether. They affect citizens of all communities; Fijians no more than others. Major changes are needed at all levels of administration: provincial, municipal and national. When we say all citizens are equal under the law we should mean with respect to all constitutional provisions other than those excepted .

But almost all provisions in the Constitution dealing with the executive, legislative and even some judicial functions of government, from the appointment of the President and Vice President, to representation in the House of Representatives and Senate, the drawing of election boundaries, the alternative vote system and elections; the many powers of the Great Council of Chiefs, the appointment of senior judges, and the provisions for amending the constitution, to a greater or lesser extent, under the circumstances prevailing in Fiji for the past several years, entrench Fijian paramountcy, potentially to the detriment of other communities. And this paramountcy is by no means shared equally from the top to the bottom of Fijian society. A constitution which guarantees that all are not equal under the law makes other references to human rights sound rather hollow.

By "under the circumstances prevailing in Fiji for the past several years" I mean the pervasive and universally dominant influence of extreme Fijian nationalism, reinforced by religious extremism, in almost all spheres of public life. In the SDL Government where supporters of the Speight coup were made cabinet ministers, and a Minister referred to IndoFijians as "weeds" to be rooted out and sent to India. In Senate where religious extremists like Tomasi Kanailagi held sway. In the leadership of the Methodist church. In a Great Council of Chiefs led by equally rabid nationalists. In the absence of an effective parliamentary opposition, thanks to the failure of the "multi-party Cabinet" clause in the Constitution, in large part brought about by Qarase's refusal to allow Chaudhry in his cabinet, despite an Appeals Court and Supreme Court ruling. In ethnic Fijians heading almost all government ministries and departments. In the absence of transparency and high levels of favourism and corruption. In the general ignorance of political realities and apathy by the public. In the Indo-Fijian population's fear of retaliation. And, last but not least, by a not very vocal fourth estate. In other "circumstances" most Constitutional provisions could have produced a fair and just society; in the particular circumstances of the 1990s and early 2000s, they could not. Democracy, which the SDL called a "foreign flower" not suited to Fiji, never stood a chance.

Check reinforces check, building impregnable barriers against change to the Constitution. The President and Vice-President are appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) following consultation with the Prime Minister. The PM and Cabinet are appointed by the President, acting on his own judgment, from the party with the confidence of the House. The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition the MP who, in his opinion, would be acceptable to the majority of MPs in the opposition party or parties. [The ousted Leader of the Opposition's party had two seats!]

The upper house or Senate consists of 32 unelected members. All are appointed by the President on the advice of others: 14 on advice from the GCC; 9 on advice from the PM, 8 on advice from the Leader of the Opposition, and one on the advice of the Council of Rotuma.

The powerful Great Council of Chiefs consists of 55 unelected members: three each are nominated by the 14 provinces (irrespective of population size); 3 by the Council of Rotuma, and 6 by the Minister of Fijian Affairs in consultation with the President. The President, Vice President, PM and 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka are members.

The Chief Justice is appointed by the President on the advice of the PM. The CJ presides over the Supreme Court that deals, among other things, with "any matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation." The Election Boundaries Commission and the Electoral Commission are appointed by the President after consulting the PM and Leader of the Opposition. The chairperson in both cases is a judge.

Parliamentary representation derives from fixed communal seats (17 rural Fijian; 19 Indo-Fijian, one Rotuman and three General voters) based on provinces (which serve few other purposes, except for Fijians) and six urban Fijian and 25 Open seats. The boundaries, the number and type of seats, and the system of voting is inflexible and grossly unfair, especially to urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians. One wonders whether such an unequal and unfair electoral system breaches UN declarations on human rights.

Despite these provisions, a multi-ethnic government led by Mahendra Chaudhry's FLP won the 1999 election. Speight and Qarase sought, and many in today's opposition seek, to prevent this ever happening again.

To change this system within the Constitution requires a specially announced bill to be read three times in the House of Representatives and to have the support of at least two-thirds of the members in the House and the Senate at its second and third readings. Sixty days must separate the last two readings.

This may seem not unreasonable. It should not be too easy to change a constitution, though election system details should not need to be enshrined in the Constitution. One might have thought principles alone would have sufficed, with details left to subsequent legislation. But the story does not stop there.

The Bill, even with this support, can be vetoed by "certain members". It still needs the support of 15 of the 23 Fijian MPs, 13 of the 19 Indo-Fijians, and 2 of the 3 General Voter MPs. Given that rural Fijians and General Voters are over-represented, it seems unlikely that their MPs would vote for a fairer system that could see them out of job.

Which takes us back to the "context" within which the Constitution was drafted and accepted. The dominant Fijian leaders refused to accept the possibility of a non-Fijian president or vice-president; they wanted to further entrench Fijian land and sea ownership; special assistance for Fijians to compete in business; and special mention of Christianity. The Constitution's preamble defers to "the enduring influence of Christianity in these islands and its contribution, along with that of other faiths, to the spiritual life of Fiji".

[The Methodist Church submission to the Reeves Commission wanted much more: Fiji to be declared a Christian state; a ban on Sunday work; Christian teaching to be taught and safeguarded in government; no other ethnic group to be allowed permanent residency in Fiji, and provision, also within the Constitution, for the safeguarding of Fijian "values, religion, culture, their land and sea." (* Tuwere, 46: 1997). Most, but thankfully not all, Methodist Church leaders were core supporters of the 1987 and 1990 coups. As the religious element in extreme Fijian nationalism that provided the "foot soldiers" for these coups, they must bear much responsibility for the bigotry, intolerance and inhumanity which has allowed Fiji's "coup culture" to fester and flourish. Their thoughts have no place in a democratic constitution.]

Non-Fijians (mostly non-Christians) had little choice. Under the 1990 they had limited rights; under the new constitution they would in some respects be second-class citizens, but their rights appeared more protected. This is the "context" of the 1997 Constitution. Its prime cause and effect was not to advance democracy -- or establish parliamentary (sic!) paramountcy -- but to draw the fangs from Fijian ethnic and religious extremism, ensure Fijian paramountcy, give non-Fijians an acceptable recognized place in the country, and create the political stability necessary for economic and social advancement.

In a healthy democracy (which the Constitution claims Fiji to be) one particular human right is that one person's vote should be worth no more or less than any other person's.

The role of an unelected, "aristocratic-bureaucratic" body like the GCC would appear to have no proper place in the running of the state. Its role should be restricted to Fijian affairs, as indeed was long ago intended. It has no mandate from or over others, and should, in my opinion, play no part in national politics.

Provinces (today's approximations of pre-contact Fijian political units, the yasana) are the geographic strongholds of the chiefs and the units used for the Fijian administration. They are vastly unequal in population size and have no meaning for non-Fijians. They are an unsatisfactory and undemocratic way to determine parliamentary seat allocations.

Bainimarama is right in wanting a truer democracy but I don't see how he can do it without breaking the Constitution. The only legal way out would seem to be along the lines suggested above by Joji Kotobalavu: persuade his opponents to change the voting system (and later conduct a further constitutional review) after the elections. There could then be an election in December followed by the agreed-to changes; and a new election, based on the new system, soon afterwards.

For this ever to happen, much is being asked of the President's Dialogue Forum, and the international community. The EU, Commonwealth, Forum and particularly Australia and New Zealand will need to lean far more heavily on Bainimarama's opponents than they have on Bainimarama. How each party acts will tell us much about the true value they attach to democracy.

* Ilaitia Tuwere "The Church State Relation in Fiji", pp25-52 in Brij Lal and Tomasi Vakatora (eds), Fiji in Transition, Vol. I.1997.

(-/o+) The Present Fiji Electoral System: Where Some Votes Count Three to Four Times more than others
28 Jan. 2009

Two posts worth looking at are in today's Pacific Media Centre blog feedback.
http://pacificmediacentre.blogspot.com/2009/01/refreshing-view-on-pacific-coverage.html Old Pacific-hand Ron Crocombe has some scathing things to say about the Interim Government (-), to which David Robie responds (o+).

I'll limit my comments (o+) to only one of Professor Crocombe's accusations. He is probably correct is saying that most people will continue to vote along ethnic lines, whatever the system, but he does not say that the present system offers little alternative: 46 of the 71 electorates are Communal electorates in which voters vote according to their ethnicity. The remaining 25 are Open seats.

Neither does he say just how unequal this system (which is based on provinces not population distribution) is. In the 2006 election*, for example, there were on average only 9,437 registered voters in Fijian, 4,607 in General Voter, and 5,373 in Rotuman communal electorates. This compared with 16,065 for Urban Fijan electorates and 10,762 for Indo-Fijians. Urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians were grossly under-represented.

These averages hide even further inequalities. The rural Fijian electorates of Bua, Kadavu, Lau, Namosi and Serua each had less than 7,000 registered voters, while more urbanized Ba West had 15,348, and Nadroga/Navosa 19,044.


It should be noted that the former over-represented electorates are among the least "developed" and most prone to influence by chiefs and church ministers. In contrast, the latter under-represented electorates produced two multi-ethnic Fijian parliamentary leaders ousted by racist-driven coups: Dr Timoci Bavadra, Fiji's first Labour Party leader (ousted by the "Rabuka" coup in 1987) and Adi Teimumu Vuikaba Speed, Deputy PM in the Mahendra Chaudhry Labour-led government (ousted by the "Speight" 2000 coup).

It is, of course, an over-simplification to equate patterns of voting with geographic areas, but there is some relationship.

So if each person's vote is to be of equal importance -- as the UN requires -- you wouldn't recommend the Fiji system, whatever its ethnic predispositions.

And this is not even taking into account the one in five voters who in 2006 either did not vote (many because their name was not on the roll) or had their vote declared invalid (because the system is too complicated for many to understand.)

I wonder if Forum leaders are aware of these inequalities, and whether they would tolerate them in their counties.

* For 2006 (and earlier 1999, 200o) election results, see www.elections.gov.fj/results2006.html) and for full analysis by Prof. Robbie Robertson, see pp 360-383 in Walsh: Fiji: an Encyclopaedic Atlas, advertised on this blog site.

(+B) Will Elections alone Solve Fiji Problems? Asking the Wrong Questions Fr Kevin Barr

There seems to be a great deal of international concern that Fiji should have elections and return to democracy as soon as possible. Calls for democratic elections have come from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the European Union and the commonwealth. We have had the report of the Eminent Persons group. Recently we have been inundated with overseas visitors – the UN fact finding mission as well as the Commonwealth Human rights fact finding mission. Two visits have been made from the European Union. Then the Pacific Islands Forum has organized a Ministerial committee to advise on the holding of elections.

This great flurry of activity is very interesting. It seems that the international community thinks that as soon as Fiji holds elections and returns to democracy, all its problems will be over. It will be accepted back into all the organizations from which it has been expelled and all will be right with the world. There can be great rejoicing and everyone can sit back satisfied that democracy has been restored.

All this is well and good. But it has all happened before. After previous coups in 1987 and 2000 Fiji was urged to have elections and return to democracy as quickly as possible. This happened and the International community was overjoyed to welcome Fiji back into the democratic fold.

But elections did not solve Fiji’s basic problems and when those problems raised their heads again and caused serious tensions and upsets (as they did during the Qarase regime) the International community seemed quite unconcerned because a democratic government was in place. No fact finding missions came from the commonwealth or the UN or the EU. No Eminent Persons were selected to look into the problems. Our closest neighbours did little to put pressure on a racist regime to act in the interests of all its citizens. They had seen to it that a democratically elected government was in place and that was all that was required.

Yet, by now we should have learnt that democracy measured by elections is not a panacea. Rudi Guliani noted recently that “elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy”.

A visit was made recently by Ministers from Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and other Pacific Island Forum Nations. But they asked the wrong questions. Their main concern (or obsession) was “How soon can Fiji have elections?” They should have been asking: “What issues need to be addressed by Fiji before elections can be expected to return Fiji to real democracy?”

Every coup exposes wounds that need to be healed and the deep underlying problems that need to be addressed. Before Fiji can gain stability and effectively return to some degree of real democracy a number of serious issues need to be addressed and resolved.


1. The agenda of the extreme nationalists needs to be addressed. This includes those who want “Fiji for the Fijians”, calls for “Fijian unity” and the demand for a Christian State.

2. The explosive mix of fundamentalist religion and extreme nationalism found in the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji (ACCF) which seeks to have a strong influence on the political and social scene.

3. The current electoral system which is unfair to Fijians, encourages racial divisiveness and is contrary to human rights.

4. The conflicts and power tensions within some of the Fijian chiefly families and confederacies.

5. The “culture of silence” which ensures that, at election time, Fijians – especially those in rural areas – are strongly influenced (or required) by culture to vote for the candidates selected for them by their Chief, their Provincial Council or their Church Minister (thus making a mockery of individual choice and true democracy.

6. The culture of mismanagement, corruption, nepotism and cronyism.

7. The current economic policies which are creating greater poverty and inequality and giving rise to “two Fijis”.


Besides all this we need:
· a well conducted Census (now hopefully nearly completed);
· the establishment of fair and proper electoral boundaries;
· extensive voter education about the nature and purpose of democracy.

We don’t just need a timeframe for a return to democracy, we need strategies that will address the big problems underlying our instability and giving rise to constant coups.

We do not have a “coup culture”, rather we have a number of serious unaddressed problems which will continue to cause instability (and possibly further coups) until they are effectively acknowledged and addressed. Any attempt to throw a cloak of superficial democracy over them will be counterproductive.

So elections alone are no panacea for Fiji’s problems. Much more is needed is we are to gain and sustain stability. As Guliani noted above, “elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy”.

The recent events in Thailand should offer some warning signs that having elections and returning to democracy do not necessarily bring peace and stability. Only one year after the people of Thailand had elections, the nation is in turmoil again because the fundamental problems of the country were not addressed.

Those nations and organizations which are currently demanding Fiji to return to democracy through immediate elections may unwittingly be promoting further future conflict and disharmony.

Everyone wants Fiji to return to democracy. But, if we are wise, we will “hasten slowly” and make sure that basic problems underlying Fiji’s instability have been addressed. Only then can we hope to really return to sound and sustainable democracy.

Some say Fiji’s underlying problems are best addressed by an elected government – not by an Interim government. But this has not happened so far and the danger is that, once elected according to the present system, a new government will continue racist policies and inequality and fail to get to the root causes of the nation’s problems.

What Australia, New Zealand, the US, the EU, the UN, the Pacific Islands Forum and the commonwealth should really be looking at is whether or not the basic problems underlying Fiji’s instability are currently being addressed by the Interim government – not simply how soon Fiji can be forced into having elections for some questionable quick “return to democracy”.

Moreover if the Interim government is addressing the basic problems underlying Fiji’s instability our so-called friends and neighbours should be assisting (not hindering) this process of development.

(o+) Fiji, New Zealand, the Media
Crosbie Walsh. Dec. 2008
(An extract from my seasonal letter to friends)

Fiji continues to be a concern. We spent some years there and people we know and respect are on both sides of the political divide. Perhaps the most disturbing feature is the abysmally ignorant and one-sided stance of our politicians and even worse media coverage. The words “military coup” and “return to democracy” are stamped with a respectively bad and good singularity which is far from the actual situation.

The Fiji parliamentary system was far from democratic. One’s vote was worth much more or much less depending on your ethnic group and where you lived. Generally, rural Fijians and General (not Fijian or Indo-Fijian) voters were over-represented, and urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians under-represented. There had been no census for ten years and the electoral rolls were well out of date. Many people were bribed to vote and hundreds of ballot papers went missing.

The Qarase Government that was narrowly elected in 2001 was entirely Fijian and included a number of ethno-nationalist and religious extremists, some of whom were implicated in the 2000 (Speight) coup which overthrew the Indo-Fijian-led but essentially multi-ethnic government of Mahendra Chaudhry. One of Qarase’s ministers referred to Indo-Fijians as “weeds” to be exterminated, and to poor urban squatters as “thieves” because, with nowhere else to go, they were living extra-legally on land in the peri-urban areas. Squatting increased during this time due in part to a government agency, the Native Lands Trust Board, advising many Fijian landowners not to renew leases to Indo-Fijians. Another consequence was a sharp decline in cultivated land and the size of the sugar harvest. The Government promised rural Fijians control of their local coastal reefs and foreshores. In anticipation of this becoming law, one landowner offered $10 fishing licences to Fijians and $100 licences to Indo-Fijians. Other proposed legislation greatly favoured Fijians to the detriment of other races. And a “Tolerance and Reconciliation” Bill sought to absolve all those jailed or involved in the 2000 Speight coup and mutiny, but offered no compensation to the thousands of Indo-Fijians uprooted from their homes, many to leave Fiji for ever.

I won’t go on. This should not be a lecture on Fiji’s politics. But this was a coup with a difference, and more a military takeover than a coup. Coups are sudden. Commodore Bainimarama gave PM Qarase months of warning: act now against the widespread corruption; stop the proposed legislation; treat all citizens, irrespective or race and religion, as equal. Where special assistance is needed for the needy, do not confine it to only one race.

The New Zealand Position and Elections, and the Media

So here we are, two years down the road, with our Government insisting that Fiji returns to a democracy that never was, and taking actions (particularly its indiscriminate travel ban on anyone related to the military or interim government) which is making it extremely difficult to provide effective government or a healthy economy. And, as ever, we have a media intent on the spectacular, fully geared to sell newspapers and maintains viewer ratings. Unfortunately, in-depth analyses and more balanced reporting would do neither. Over the years, superficiality and trivia on TV have trained New Zealanders to limit their attention span to 3-4 minutes whenever any important issue is covered.

There’s little doubt this same sort of media coverage played a part in our November change of government. People were, I think, a little tired of Helen Clarke and Labour, but Labour could still have been returned to office had the media not misrepresented much of its legislation. A Bill seeking to remove legal excuse for parental physical abuse became the “Anti-Smacking” Bill. A proposed environmental tax on farmers became the “Anti-Fart” Bill. A proposed phasing out of inefficient light bulbs was further evidence of a “nanny state”. Most other legislation was invariably labelled as “politically correct” or “social engineering”.

But Labour could only have governed again with the help of Winston Peters’ NZ First Party. Here the media spent months digging up “evidence” of its alleged misuse of election funds - all of which, on enquiry, were legally dismissed. But by then the damage was done. NZ First needed 5% of the vote to win seats in parliament. It won 4.2%. The right-wing ACT party, won one electoral seat and with only 3.6% of the overall vote, it won a further four seats. This is one of the anomalies of our mixed-member-proportional-representative system.

In the end, the election seemed to be mostly about which party would give the middle and upper classes the best tax relief - or that was the message conveyed by the media. I voted Labour for my electorate and Greens for my general ("list") vote. The Greens needed 5% to be represented in parliament. I don’t agree with all of its policies (or for that matter with all the policies of any other party) but I think they can play a worthwhile role in parliament. Besides their concern for the environment, they take what I consider to be intelligent and caring positions of most economic and social issues.