Table of Contents
Fiji’s intelligentsia – be they academics, politicians, clerics, the legal fraternity or the suddenly vocal human rights activists – have been deeply divided by the events of 5 December 2006 and the best way forward for the nation.
From day one, a marked delineation in thinking has been obvious between those who see the takeover of government by army commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama as timely, the only escape route for Fiji from the imminent national disaster posed by six years of misrule by Laisenia Qarase’s Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) government; and others who champion a return to the Laisenia Qarase-style ‘democracy’ no matter how flawed – a view articulated by our neighbours Australia and New Zealand, certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academics and lawyers, who appear to argue that Fiji should return to pre-5 December 2006, at whatever cost to the nation.
They want the government of Laisenia Qarase reinstated despite the blatant misrule, the racially divisive policies, the flouting of the rule of law and of the constitution, the endemic corruption it spawned, and its failure to prudently and responsibly manage state finances and the national economy, driving both to the brink of near bankruptcy.
Failing this, the group wants a return to immediate elections and parliamentary rule.
Among those sympathetic to the espoused mission of the army-backed interim administration are, surprisingly, hitherto strong defenders of democratic principles and the rule of law: Certain members of the judiciary, a select few from academia, some from the business community, some in the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church, several fairly articulate members of the public – as evidenced from letters in newspapers – and the Fiji Labour Party (FLP).
This group, deeply concerned at the manner in which Fiji had stagnated under the SDL regime, believe in the substance rather than the shadow of the democratic process … they are people who strongly believe that aspects of our governance are fundamentally wrong and must be rectified, as a matter of priority. Unless this is done first, genuine democracy – and, along with it, long-term peace and harmony – will continue to elude us.
They believe good governance is a necessary pre-requisite for genuine democracy, rather than a by-product. This is a philosophy that is increasingly shaping the thinking of some prominent people in the international arena.
Take for instance, the 2007 comment on democracy by candidate for the Republican nominee for the US presidency, Rudy Giuliani:
America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance throughout the world. Democracy is a noble idea, and promoting it abroad is the right long term goal of US policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional and cultural foundations … It can only work if people have a reasonable degree of safety and security. Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy. Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbours.
History demonstrates that democracy usually follows good governance, not the reverse. US assistance can do much to set nations on the road to democracy, but we must be realistic about how much we can accomplish alone and how long it will take to achieve lasting peace.[1]
Somewhat similar sentiments were articulated by Lord Paddy Ashdown, High Representative to Bosnia and the European Union Special Representative 2002–06, in an interview given to the BBC World Service on 30 June 2007. Speaking of his four years in Bosnia, Lord Ashdown stated that the international community had got its priorities wrong in Bosnia. He believed the pressure for a general election by the international community was misplaced: As a first priority, the people of Bosnia required jobs, security and stability. ‘The challenge for us is to bring governance to the global stage. If we can do that, we will live in less turbulent and more prosperous times’ he has since maintained.[2]
Likewise in Fiji. The crux of the issue for us here is Qarase-style ‘democracy’ versus good governance, equity and social justice. The international community and those who articulate their views, need to take a much more analytical look at the situation in Fiji.
An immediate general election or a return to the pre-5 December 2006 Fiji will simply recreate the problems and the flawed system of democracy that prevailed under the Qarase government with its injustices, rampant corruption and disdain for the rule of law and the constitution.
These are matters of good governance that need to be urgently addressed if we are to move forward as a nation. If there is consensus on anything, it is the acknowledgement that, over the past 20 years, coup-riddled Fiji has floundered along, experimenting with one system after another, struggling to come to grips with a multitude of problems that are, often quite simplistically, attributed to its multi-ethnic society.
This search for a national charter for sustainable progress and peaceful coexistence, finally led us to the 1997 constitution, hailed by some as the apex of our political evolution, and held aloft as the ‘only genuine lawful covenant between our people’.[3]
While it may be the ‘only genuine lawful covenant’, there is also no denying that this constitution was seriously flawed from day one – deliberately damaged by the political leadership of Sitiveni Rabuka and Jai Ram Reddy when they wrote into it an entrenched communal electoral system.
This was an extremely myopic strategy, designed to serve vested political interests rather than the national interest, and an injudicious breach of the recommendations of the Reeves Commission Report that had strongly advocated Fiji move away from racially divisive politics by adopting a majority of open rather than communal, or race-based, seats.
Yet those who boisterously espouse the cause of ‘democracy’ today, failed to utter even a murmur of protest when the core element, the very spirit of this multiracial charter, was thus rendered ‘undemocratic’. Apart from the entrenchment of voting along ethnic lines, the electoral provisions also violated the universal principle of ‘a vote of equal value’.
In light of this, the current strident calls for a restoration of ‘democracy’ as practised in Fiji pre-5 December, is not only short-sighted, it is also counter-productive because, in this critical aspect at least, the 1997 constitution failed to pave the way for true democracy and nation-building in our plural society.
If we are to build a modern, progressive state, Fiji needs to move completely away from divisive and feudalistic/colonial hang-ups such as communal electoral systems, parochialism and provincialism, religious fundamentalism, and exclusivist policies.
Such anachronisms tend to spawn corrupt politicians and elitism throughout the corridors of power, while keeping the masses poor and subjugated. Feudalistic notions cannot have a place in a reformed society.
[1] Rudolph W. Giuliani, ‘Toward a Realistic Peace; Defending Civilization and Defeating Terrorists by Making the International System Work’. Foreign Affairs, 2007, 86(5):2–18.
[2] Lord Paddy Ashdown, speech accepting Honorary Degree, University of Greenwich, 19 July 2007; www.gre.ac.uk/pr/articles/latest/a1416-lord-ashdown-honorary-degree.
[3] See, for example, Narsey, chapter 19.