Three considerations for Fiji's Future Dr. Robert Wolfgramm Department of Sociology School of Political & Social Inquiry Faculty of Arts - Clayton Monash University, Melbourne

With the establishment of the Constitutional Review Commission, President Iloilo and the interim Qarase government are to be congratulated for following through on what will be the first of several steps to restore democracy to Fiji over the next two years. It is very early days, but my purpose here is to outline three constitutional values for government which I believe will best produce order and progress for Fiji. These are that Fiji should be a (I) Christian (II) democratic (III) republic. In so doing, my hope is to stimulate discussion and encourage informed debate among all those concerned about the events of May 2000 and their aftermath.

Christian

Democracies and democratic republics need an ethos - a philosophical set of values which undergird its constitution, its orientation and its operation. In countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, Islam provides just that - they are democratic Islamic republics. In other countries, such as Australia and the United States, secular humanism informs the constitution - they are secular liberal democracies. The ethos or philosophical fabric which holds Fiji together and which should thereby give rise to Fiji's constitution is Christianity.

Not everyone will agree with this. It is common in some quarters to view Christian values as the enemy of democratic government. In the past, many Christians and democrats thought that way. But Christianity can also be compatible with democracy and indeed be the basis for it. It depends on how Christianity is defined. We can think of it in terms of broad universal values such as 'love one another', 'do unto others' etc, or in terms of specific sectarian values such as identify various church organisations - healthy lifestyle for Seventh-day Adventists; no blood transfusions for Jehovah Witnesses; no abortions for Roman Catholics and so forth. Considered in terms of its universal values, Christianity has the potential for being the basis of a Fijian democratic republic. And this would be recognised by many observers as worthwhile.

Universal Christian values which can inform a Fijian democracy may be derived from many sources. One group that has worked to establish democracies on Christian principles is Christian Democrat International. (I am not suggesting that Fiji align itself with this body; I merely raise their existence as an example of what is possible.) If Fiji does go down the path of institutionalising its Christian character in constitutional terms - such an objective would be understandable given the Christian missionary history of Fiji - the CDI charter offers much. It declares -

(I) with regard to the person: that we affirm 'the inalienable dignity of every human being'; that we recognise the unique integrity and irreplaceability of every person; that the interdependent character of society renders us responsible for each other; that freedom is what we are born for, must give each other and must strive towards; that truth is transcendent and politics can never totally realise it; and that we should have equality before the law;

(II) with regard to society: that Christianity addresses all spheres of living; that economic development should aim for fair and equal distribution; that free market forces are necessary but should not monopolise a society; that we should ensure social justice and aim to maximise social participation; that recognising the principle of 'subsidiarity' means there is a legitimate function for every level of social organisation and higher levels are duty-bound to help lower levels (ie. the powerful must help the weak, the rich must help the poor, the educated must help the less educated and so forth);

(III) with regard to political systems: that democracy is 'the best' and an 'essential instrument' for the 'integral development of individuals'; that 'strengthening the constitutional state' for the diminution of violence between individuals and communities is commendable; that encouraging the 'participation of every individual in public life' is worthwhile; that state authority 'is in the service of the individual' (and not the other way around as totalitarianism has it); and that we need 'to defend and reinstate the international legal order'.

In sum, the aims of Christian Democrat International are to 'help build a world that is more firmly based on freedom, justice and solidarity, in which every man and woman is fully valued' and valued 'in all his or her complexity'.

The foregoing shows that if Fiji was to shape itself as a republic based on these Christian and democratic values, all of its peoples can be confident that irrespective of race or gender, they will be protected by these same values. That is to say, these are not values which exclude or prejudice people or which impose discrimination on them. They are not values which will allow a Fijian government to, for example, institute 'forced-line' conversions, or to encourage mosque-burning, or to prescribe Bible lessons in public schools, or to require compulsory Sunday worship, or to enforce baptism at birth or any such thing.

Rather these are values which are at the heart of what most people already think of as 'secular' values. The reason for this is that what we today call secular social values were historically shaped and lobbied for by Christian people - many of them martyrs - of the past. Christians were at the forefront of introducing democracy, freedom of conscience, notions of equality, social justice and human dignity. Christians were first to bring the institutions of European slavery to an end and first to point to the evils of stratification inequalities. Christians have been at the cutting edge of lobbying for global peace and the rights of minorities. 'Multiculturalism' - which we all rightly take for granted as a modern virtue - was an ideology first developed among Christian thinkers and pushed to reluctant political leaders.

If Fiji opts to become a Christian democratic republic, it should know therefore, that this is nothing to be apologetic about. Such a move would recognise the historical significance of the overwhelming Christianisation of indigenous Fijians. And just as the nation is called 'Fiji' after its indigenous inhabitants, so the religion of Fijians can justifiably have a proud place in its constitution. This should not be thought of as a purely nominal measure, but a dynamic commitment requiring governments to serve the national interest with great care and consideration for both the Christian and non-Christian halves of the population. As such, it will provide a worthy set of values for directing both the spirit and the practice of Fijian politics into the future.

Democratic

While some may debate the virtue of Fiji becoming a 'Christian' nation as I have suggested it, few should argue with the second of my propositions: that Fiji is right to pursue democracy. Democratic government as we are familiar with it means rule by the will or voice of the people usually through representatives sitting together in a 'house' of some sort. We call this a 'parliament' and hence the system of governing in this way is a 'parliamentary democracy'. In some societies (eg. Britain, Australia, The United States of America), parliamentary democracy sees people represented in two different ways across two separate houses: an 'upper' and a 'lower' house. The lower house is based on a notion of persons identified by their communality or region; upper houses are based on persons identified notionally in terms of their interests.

Considered together, these two houses comprise a 'bicameral' Parliament - the upper house may be called the 'House of Lords' or 'The Senate' and lower houses may be referred to as the 'House of Commons' or the 'House of Representatives'. In other cases (eg. New Zealand, the Australian state of Queensland), only one house and therefore only one notion of citizenry is deemed sufficient for government, hence, a 'unicameral' parliamentary system. Despite its flaws and liability to manipulation, parliamentary democracy offers the best prospect for national stability and progress. Everywhere in the free world, that much is being acknowledged. The questions which are pertinent for people are: what form of parliamentary democracy should we adopt (unicameral or bicameral etc)?; and what should be the means of its implementation - that is, by what electoral method should the houses be constituted? There is no absolute model of parliamentary democracy and certainly no corresponding absolute means of electoral process. Fiji's job is to find a model that works. So far, none have in the longer term.

If Fiji is to again go down the road of a Westminster system of parliamentary democracy - which would be understandable given its British colonial past - then three defining characteristics of that system are:

(I) a bicameral parliament;
(II) the superordination of the lower house over the upper house - that is to say, supreme political power must be located in a government which is based in, and determined by having the confidence (ie. a majority) of the lower house; and,
(III) people should elect their representatives to that lower house through an open electoral contest - that is, by a competition which is fair, which is open to eligible citizens, delivered by means of un-coerced votes, in secret ballots which are held at regular intervals, and which are in accordance with other ethical standards.

Fiji has satisfied conditions (I) and (II) in the past. But it has achieved condition (III) only by means of mirrors (so to speak). In all of its past constitutions, Fiji has had a bicameral parliamentary system. Fiji has also recognised the primacy of the lower house and the necessity of it being the locus of democracy. But condition (III) has only been attempted by means of a complicated, race-based, dual electoral systems (ie. cross voting or a combination of communal and open voting). These, as we know, were put in place to placate anxieties and hostilities which may have arisen from democratic contests producing lop-sided racial majorities.

The future calls for doing away with such fears of democracy. It is time to elect persons on the basis of merit rather than race. And it is time therefore to end the clumsy race-based dual voting system which has, in one form or other, been in place since 1970. Fiji should opt for open electoral contests which provide for single member constituencies. That is to say, the nation should be divided into 'seats' (ie. geographical districts with more or less equal numbers of voters) where the voters decide in their various locations, who (irrespective of race) is to be their single representative in the lower house of their bicameral parliament.

Such a system is simple and straightforward: voters by this method can regard their votes as of equal value, and candidates can be elected on the basis of merit. Such a system will be economical in terms of cost to the nation. This system will also encourage candidates to base their appeal for votes on ideas, ideas which will progress the common good rather than on race, which, as we have seen, is a divisive factor and combative of the national interest. Further, such a system will reflect a democratic maturity - a muscular willingness to trust the verdict of the ballot box and each other.

More importantly, by moving to an open electoral contest providing single member constituencies, Fiji will be satisfying the crucial and fundamental condition for democracy upon which hangs recognition by the international community. Recognition which brings with it the lifting of sanctions, and more, the enhancement of trade and intercourse. That is to say, the minimum condition for being recognised as a democracy is that government is constitutionally formed on the basis of an open contest for power in the lower house.

Democracy also allows for the coagulation of ideas and interests into social formations we call 'parties'. In modern democracies, political parties have become the filters and means whereby most candidates present themselves to their constituencies for election to parliament. Parties give the candidate a social group for easy identity. They also function as platforms for ideas and are effective for mobilising action to meet particular ends for the society. In a democracy, parties may be based on any criteria (strictly speaking), but electoral prospects, and more importantly, consideration for modern ethical and human rights means parties must now satisfy universal non-discriminatory criteria in order to appeal and survive.

In the past, Fiji has allowed for political parties to be formed without any qualifications regarding their racial complexion. This must now be reconsidered with a view to ending the practice. If the past thirty years have shown anything, it is that permitting the formation of race-based parties is injurious to the democratic character of Fiji's national interest. Race is an intolerable criterion which has encouraged social division in Fiji and has militated against the virtue of democracy - a virtue which says that progress should come about because of better ideas not by claims to being a different or 'better' race.

Fiji should place limits on the racial proportion of candidates supplied by the political parties seeking to obtain office through the democratic process. Where race-based associations or lobby-groups may be permitted, even encouraged as a democratic right of Fiji's differentiated citizens, formally registered political parties seeking electoral office at any level of government, should be regulated. Limits must be placed on the number of candidates from one particular race. It should become mandatory that no more than 50% of the candidates fielded for an election from a single party, can be from one race (ie. according to Fiji's racial classification scheme). From a modern point of view, Fiji's race scheme itself is unwarranted, but given its likely persistence into Fiji's immediate future, then a constitutional requirement that a single race cannot constitute more than 50% of a party's candidates, would be helpful. Such a provision will immediately end the 'race equals party' equation which has so damaged relations between Fiji's indigenous and Indian communities. And, as noted above, this rule will also encourage parties to think across the racial divide to ideas which promote the national rather than sectional interest.

Republic

To the first of my considerations (that Fiji should be a Christian nation) and my second (that it should be democratic), I would add that Fiji can and should be a distinctive republic. It must become a nation which reconciles its competing interests. It can reclaim itself as a 'the way the world should be'. It can be a model for others both in the region and the rest of the world. What I am proposing here is not that model - that is for the Fijian people to come up with - but I merely offer some ideas which could assist their thinking.

As a republic, Fiji requires both a democratic and an indigenous settlement. Failure to satisfactorily account for the latter has resulted in three coups and three different constitutions over the past thirty years. It is my strong view that only by a satisfactory resolution of the indigenous settlement, can Fiji progress. To this end, I suggest that six institutions should comprise Fiji's system of government. These are:

1. a president as a 'Head of State';
2. a Bose Levu Vakaturaga as a 'House of Chiefs';
3. a Bose Ni Vanua as a 'House of Commoners';
4. a House of Representatives as the 'People's House' which includes
5. the office of Prime Minister as 'Head of Government' and Cabinet as 'Executive' of the Popular Will; and
6. a Senate as a 'Provincial House' to oversee Special Interests.

Institutions 1 - 3 address the need for an indigenous settlement; 4 - 6 address the need for a democratic settlement.

THE INDIGENOUS SETTLEMENT

These are the institutions which I believe will establish the indigenous settlement:

1.The president (The Head of State)

As a republic, Fiji's 'head of state' must be a 'president'. The president should be a Fijian whose solemn responsibility is to symbolically represent the nation, the matanitu in its entirety. Like the national flag and the national anthem, the president is an embodiment of the national ethos. If Fiji is to be constitutionally defined as a 'Christian democratic republic', the president should obviously be both a Christian and a democrat.

He or she should be appointed for a lengthy tenure by a substantial majority of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs). This would provide for much needed stability and continuity at the very apex of the nation.

Eligibility and candidacy could be achieved by Fiji's fourteen traditional tribal zones nominating, either by popular choice or chiefly process, one chiefly candidate each for BLV consideration. By necessity, and by constitutional stipulation, the president should be a 'Fijian' (according to the formal classification of such as found in the Vola Ni Kawa Bula).

The powers of the president are largely ceremonial - as head of the armed forces, and to ratify legislation - but reserve powers to dismiss governments should be granted to the office for use in times of national emergency such as warfare, internal crises and so forth (see below under 'House Representatives').

2. The Bose Levu Vakaturaga (The Chiefly House)

The BLV should comprise Fijian chiefs (according to the formal classification of such as found in the Vola Ni Kawa Bula). Each of Fiji's fourteen provincial councils could nominate, by chiefly consultative process, a representative to the BLV for lengthy periods of tenure.

In terms of functions, as noted above, the BLV should appoint the president thereby linking Fiji's traditional power-base with the modern republican figurehead. The BLV's functions could also be specified to review and constantly the welfare of the Fijian people, to monitor their progress and to mediate their problems to the democratic arena (see below). Because of its historical, racial and sectional character as the traditional Fijian house, the BLV should not have the power to formally initiate legislation, but should possess a recommendatory function to the legislature.

3. A Bose ni Vanua (A Commoners' House)

Democracy cannot be imposed from the top down - it must come from the bottom up. Fiji needs a constitutional forum for airing commoner grievances. The lack of such a body has exacerbated indigenous anxieties and led to their explosive eruption in Fiji's coups, strikes, protests and so forth. A formally established forum may provide a safety-valve for the otherwise repressed and therefore volatile nature of indigenous politics.

The BNV would comprise Fijian commoners (according to the formal classification of such as found in the Vola Ni Kawa Bula). As with the chiefly BLV, each of Fiji's fourteen provincial councils could nominate, by chiefly consultative process, a commoner representative to the BNV for a period which is coterminous with the life of the lower house of parliament (see democratic settlement below). This would provide for relevance and immediacy in the work of the BNV. To maintain accountability to their grassroots constituents, BNV members should only be removed by due process on recommendation from the relevant provincial council.

The sole function of the BNV would be to assist the BLV and the president in their work of constantly reviewing the welfare of the Fijian people; of monitoring their progress (in all spiritual, economic, educational, moral and political spheres); and of mediating the problems of commoners to the democratic party-political arena. Because of its novel character, the BNV cannot have the power to formally initiate legislation, but should possess a recommendatory function to the BLV based on their review of legislation arising during the life of a parliament.

THE DEMOCRATIC SETTLEMENT

The institutions which would establish Fiji's democratic settlement are:

4. House of Representatives (The People's House)

The House of Representatives is where a democracy is defined. In a Westminster system, it is where the locus of political power - as embodied in offices of Prime Minister and Cabinet - is located. The HOR should comprise eligible Fiji citizens elected to office by due democratic process (see discussion under 'Democratic').

The HOR should be constituted through an electoral system which allows for parties to garner votes. Both of these institutions require reform if Fiji is to progress with prospects for stability. The reforms I have suggested are (I) that Fiji should abandon race-based electorates and opt for open electoral contests which provide for single member constituencies. (For the present number of eligible electors in Fiji, the constitution should provide for perhaps no more than 56 HOR seats for the entire nation); and (II) that Fiji should abandon the practice of permitting race-based parties to contest elections. Limits should be constitutionally placed on the racial proportion of candidates supplied by the political parties seeking to obtain office.

Since the HOR is where government is formed by the majority party having confidence of the house and as authorised by the president, its main functions should be to oversee the national economy, to secure national order, to legislate responsibly in the interests of all, and to monitor specified national affairs as devised by the PM and Cabinet. In the Westminster system only members of the HOR have the authority to formally initiate legislation.

5. Prime Minister & Cabinet (The Head of Government and The Executive)

Fiji's 'head of government' should be a 'prime minister' assisted by a ministerial heads of portfolios (ie. their accompanying public service departments) devised for overseeing the national interest. The prime minister's government would be required to have the confidence of the HOR by a simple majority. PM and Cabinet should be chosen from the political party having the largest majority in the HOR as well as having its confidence. Holding the offices of PM and Cabinet should be constitutionally stipulated as open to any eligible member of the HOR irrespective of race or other criteria.

The powers of the PM and Cabinet are extensive and well established according to Westminster principles. But since the vanua (land and seas and relevant resources derived therein) is an issue of particular political potency and sensitivity for indigenous Fijians, it behoves the people of Fiji to render a constitution stipulating that legislation affecting alienation or other changes to the classification of the vanua can only be passed and ratified by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of all four houses - the HOR, the Senate, the BNV and the BLV - under the auspices of the president. International charters, treaties and agreements could also act to stimulate and/or inhibit the boundaries of executive power on this matter.

6. Senate (The Provincial House)

The Senate is a 'house of special interests' - in Fiji's case, provincial (and vanua) interests should be protected by this house. The Senate should comprise eligible Fiji citizens elected to office by due democratic process. Like the HOR, the Senate should be constituted through an electoral system which allows for parties to garner votes for their candidates. Two successful senatorial candidates could be produced by open electoral contests within Fiji's fourteen provincial seats. The two successful candidates would be those garnering the most, and next most, number of votes in each of the fourteen seats. This would make 28 senators in all for the nation.

The Senate's main functions should be to oversee legislation arising from the lower house in regard to the national economy, national order and international affairs. In the Westminster system, Senators may hold government portfolios but only members of the HOR have the power to formally initiate legislation.

Conclusion

The careful reader will see that the model of republicanism I am proposing here gives unprecedented weight to Fiji's traditional tribal zones - the fourteen provinces which comprise every inch of Fiji. Each institution is configured as a factor of that figure: hence, 14 chiefs and 14 commoners; 28 senators; and 56 lower house representatives. These numbers are smaller than previous constitutions but they are workable and economical - small government is better than over-government. The fourteen provinces also determine the character of the two Fijian houses - the BLV and the BNV - and they determine the character of both the Senate and the president. This is deliberate because it is my belief that the tikina and the provinces are the best means of determining the will of the grassroots, of defining the primal form of social organisation which is indigenous to Fiji. I would argue therefore, that is where real power should spring from and responsibility resolve to, in any formulation of the nation as a democratic republic.

The complementary aspect to this provincial power, is that democracy is virtually confined to just three institutions - the Senate, the House of Representatives and the offices of PM and Cabinet. This too is deliberate since, technically speaking, that is all that is necessary to secure and define Fiji as a democracy. Hence, I am of the view that Fiji should be a genuine but minimalist democracy (given indigenous anxieties about it). The democracy I have put forward is minimalist, but nevertheless real - in fact, more substantial than Fiji has ever had. But a democratic government formed in my model will find it difficult, almost impossible to do what a democratic government, in say Cambodia can do to its traditional landowners: that is, remove them from their homelands for the sake of the national interest. Fijian taukei, as I understand, do not want to live in that kind of a democracy - which is common not only to Cambodia, but the world over.

There are many way to skin a cat (as we say) and I am under no illusion that the suggestions I have put forward are the only way to achieve stability and progress for Fiji. But they are conducive to Fiji's national interest, now and in the future. They are rights-securing; they are workable and can deliver stable government. They have a demonstrably ethical basis; they will satisfy the calls for democracy coming from abroad; they address both indigenous and national issues. Finally, they will enhance participation in the political process by giving confidence to all of Fiji's people that forums exist whereby their needs may be heard and addressed.

Robert Wolfgramm (THSESWS Political Writer/Analyst)

WEBMASTER 

T H E   K I N G D O M    O F    T O N G A

Copyright ©:  Loseli Ma'ukie Hafoka 2000.