Fijian Governance Structures

The enemy lies within

www.fijitimes.com - Thursday, June 14, 2007

I LEARNT a lesson from one of my sons a few years ago when he directed me to the book of Romans chapter 7, verse 14 in the Bible's New Testament about the conflict within us.

In St Paul's letter to the Romans, he says both good and evil live within each of us. Either way, one's destiny is what you make of it.

A similar lesson was brought home to me at the Kadavu Provincial Council meeting held last month in Tavuki, where our chiefs made two very important announcements to the people of Kadavu:

The forefathers of Kadavu left a legacy for the present generation. Hard work and perseverance were not new to Kadavu and that Fiji's current situation was not exceptional to Kadavu;

Chiefs must take a backward step to allow God to take the lead.

Beautiful, profound and powerful statements of wisdom that echoed in the Ratu Nacagilevu meeting house and beyond, as we witnessed the honouring of our past', and using lessons learnt from the present', to steer us forward' to our vision of, "Ko Kadavu me Vanua Bula Sautu".

Under the Fijian administration, the provincial councils were established after the Deed of Cession in 1874 to ensure good governance and coordinate development for the well being of the Fijian people. There are 14 provinces where each has a provincial council plus Rotuma totalling the number at 15. The traditional chiefs preside in these councils either as advisors or working members.

The traditional equivalent of the provincial council is the Bose Vanua. Membership is privy only to a few by inheritance and it is the overarching authority over the vanua including introduced systems of governance like the provincial councils. Whilst the Bose Vanua is supposed to be independent, I have noted ambitious politicians who would traditionally not qualify to speak in such a forum participate at such a meeting to lobby for support for their political party. This therefore raises the question on the sustainability of the Bose Vanua.

For those who work in rural community development, I am sure they will agree with me when I say that one of the best legacies left behind by the British colonial administration is the provincial council. The provincial council is the top (of three) echelon in the hierarchy of an introduced governance system at provincial level. The next step down from the provincial council is the tikina or district council. At the bottom of the rung is the Bose Vakoro or village council. In Fiji, there are 1170 villages and 187 tikina. The turaga ni koro is the village representative to the tikina or district council.

The mata ni tikina is the district representative to the provincial council.

The provincial council is a body capable of building strong communities. It has a checks and balances system and a consultative process in place that allows for the top down and bottom up approach' of communication. For example, a decision made at the provincial council meeting is relayed down to the district or tikina council meeting which then takes the decision further to the village council meeting or Bose Vakoro. And, vice versa.

Furthermore, the provincial council is a helpful avenue for mobilising and monitoring development and a great facilitator for building social capital.

Because of its nurturing role, the provincial council can be likened to the role of motherhood where it is supposed to ensure its children or members of its province are well looked after.

The taxpayers through the Government provide funding support for provincial and tikina/district councils. The taxpayers also provide a monthly allowance for the turaga ni koro, who coordinates development at village level and acts as the secretariat at Bose Vakoro or village council meetings.

In addition to support from the Government, provincial councils also receive an annual levy from the members of the province, for development purposes.

With such an ideal structure in place to support rural community development, and millions of dollars spent on development assistance programs these past 40 years, why does Dr Wadan Narsey, a respected and renowned economist say in the Sunday Times (10 June) that Fijians have the largest share of poor people?

And, why do our relatives in the villages continue to find it difficult to survive on idealistic sun, sand and sea, and sooner or later migrate to Viti Levu to add to our increasing squatter population?

The Paki family's story in Sunday's issue (10 June) tells of poverty to access quality education faced by people in the outer islands and their struggles and pain as they make their way to Suva, to try to experience what many of us who live in urban areas take for granted. I am sure there would be many similar stories entwined with both pain and joy.

Why then should this be when successive Fijian led governments have always provided for the Fijians through various development program and the recent affirmative action?

Where have all the dollars gone?

Fijian Holdings Limited was initially set up to ensure that people like the Paki family and others like them in the maritime and hinterland provinces enjoyed quality education and reliable health, communication and transport services just as their urban cousins do. Unfortunately, however, evil in the form of greed got the better of the two (that St Paul wrote about in his letter to the Romans), and instead of a fair distribution of the Fijian Holdings Limited wealth, only a handful of sons of some of the provinces enjoyed the bigger piece of the pie including all of its whipped cream.

Then there is the case of the divisive mother. The provincial council in allowing politics to take precedence over social and economic development for its people has sadly neglected its nurturing role and instead has become a political football.

For example, the provincial announcement of candidates belonging to a preferred political party for election is synonymous to a mother's pet child.

I am never sure whether this is an act of ignorance or arrogance.

Wouldn't any right thinking person who is aware that the provincial council is funded by taxpayers regardless of political affiliation quickly conclude this to be ethically wrong? One cannot be blamed for assuming this to be a conniving form of cheap campaign by capitalising on the ignorance of the people. Before the May elections last year, the organisation I work for had raised this out of concern that the dignity of the people was no longer respected. Where ever one went, the turaga ni koro was found to be busily carrying out tasks for the preferred political party of the provincial council, at taxpayers cost.

Another example. In the past, we have witnessed major fundraising events facilitated by provincial councils some easily totalling more than the $1million mark.

Buildings, scholarship funds and business ventures that exist today are testimony of the funds collected by various provinces. In most provinces, the noble objective behind this accumulation is to maintain a revolving fund to ensure the well being of the people of the province.

In reality however, only a small percentage of the population of the province is privy to information on how funds earned are actually utilised. Whether the financial accounts are audited does not matter.

Do you remember those that posed as employment agents for security companies in far away Middle East? They visited villages with promises of immediate employment. By the time they left, the village trust fund that was set aside to send the children for tertiary level education had been emptied into the agents' pockets. The employment agents needed the money to pay for the passports of the expectant villagers.

Years on, the people are still waiting and the children have lost a golden opportunity for further study.

With the few above examples in place one wonders whether we Fijians are our own worst enemies and may have perhaps allowed the evil enemy within to thrive and to overtake the good that has gone to sleep within.

The author is executive director of Pacific Community Development Fiji

Poverty in Fiji

www.fijitimes.com - letter to Fiji Times - Poverty speech

I REFER to Dr Wardan Narseys statistical methodology and congratulate him on his research to explain poverty levels according in Fiji to various ethnicity.

I believe we should be prepared to have our views and results shaped by the research done by Dr Wardan.

I also believe he did not go far enough in terms of being strategic in the new social, economic and political order of the market information civilisation of the 21st Century.

In this regard, his research methodology appears to have failed to balance out quantitative data with qualitative data.

In the past, economists were so good at calculating economic formula to solve all our problems that in their enthusiasm, they factored out human elements such as creativity, perseverance, honour, etc. These are some of Gods gifts to humanity and indeed we must be continuously cognisant of such factors so as to properly account for social capital.

Accounting for such qualitative data allows for more appropriate information surveys to underpin public policy, factors and differentiators from a strategic marketing perspective.

Taking such a holistic perspective within Dr Wardans framework, I would like to point out a couple of caveats to his article.

First, Dr Wardans conclusions are certainly valid with respect to educational poverty (people who are poor because they cant afford an education) but they are not necessarily valid for supply-side poverty (people who are poor because of scarce or restricted opportunities).

For example, affirmative action quotas rectify glass ceilings to promotion opportunities for women or minorities most effectively.

My own research confirms that ethnicity (as indicative of cultural suitability) is in fact a universal success factor that needs to be measured in this regard as an indicator to formulate local domestic intervention policies.

This leads me to my second caveat, which concerns the top 10 per cent wealthiest of the general population.

This group largely comprises the business community and this is another area where market opportunities are restricted because of the market dominance of established players and networking cliques. That disposes it toward limited affirmative quota inventions.

My research shows that this group is made up of 52 per cent Indians, 27 per cent Other Races and 21 per cent indigenous Fijians and Rotumans.

Of course there are real ethical difficulties in recommending affirmative action interventions at this level but if one accepts the normal Pareto breakdown that the top 20 per cent of wealthy people probably own 80 per cent of the (local) national wealth, then clearly this is the area where most can be done to redress the perceived wealth disparity between the major races.

I look forward to reading my own copy of Dr Narseys book but in view of my comments here and the typically self-righteous attack by the FLP, the way forward may not be as straight forward as he might have hoped.

Mere Tuisalalo Samisoni
Lami

The Qoliqoli Bill

Letter to Fiji Daily Post 5-Jun-2007

Sir,

With the recent resurrection of land tenure in Fiji, I would like to bring up again the topic, what is unlawful or immoral about the Qoliqoli Bill that had hoteliers up in arms claiming it would ruin their businesses and the military rejecting it on the basis that it was racially divisive.

Whilst it is not disputed the bill still needed further refining after going to the committee, the hoteliers claim about the ruining of their businesses was nothing but a smear campaign.

As for the military’s stance that it had to be shelved because it was racially decisive lacks merit and wholly unsubstantiated.

Ever since 1970, respective Governments have implemented policy or law that specifically benefited a particular racial group and mainly Fijians on the grounds of positive discrimination or paramount interests.

These laws or policy were never rejected by the people, although they may not have approved of it, but it was accepted that it was the prerogative of the government of the day.

For instance, to mention only a few the Alliance supported the FAB which had scholarships exclusively for indigenous Fijians, so they can get better educated and compete in the workplace.

The SVT government funded the Fijian Holdings with $21m and this was specifically set up to assist indigenous Fijian businesses.

The Chaudhry Labour government created a resettlement policy for cane farmers whose ALTA leases were not renewed to be resettled in the Navua plains and these benefited mainly Indian farmers. Then the SDL introduced the Qoliqoli Bill to return to the indigenous Fijians what has always been theirs since time immemorial, which they gave away ownership and control of their lands and qoliqoli to Her Majesty in the Deed of Cession in 1874.

The lands belonging to the indigenous Fijians have been returned and is now administrated by the NLTB, however the qoliqoli have remained with the State.

When you consider the few examples I have mentioned above, it seems to be conveniently ignored by the critics of the bill, that in all cases, they were new rights which never existed before, which were conferred to the targeted group.

However, with the qoliqoli bill, it is totally different because it is an existing legal, traditional, cultural and moral right, which is being given recognition by the government of the day as it seeks to complete what needed to have been done back in 1970.

UN protocols recognises indigenous rights and the qoliqoli bill was the legal way of returning to indigenous Fijian what is rightfully theirs. The critics have succeeded in delaying the implementing of the qoliqoli bill, but it will one day be passed by Parliament.

The military has been used as a scapegoat again during this coup and the big players behind them have a totally different agenda for Fiji which is not in the best interest of the indigenous Fijians.

Before you respond to my letter, let me ask you this:

Who is guilty of discrimination and in contravention of international protocols? The SDL Government in endeavoring to return to indigenous Fijians their qoliqoli through the qoliqoli bill or the objectors who seek to permanently deprive the indigenous Fijians from reclaiming what has always been rightfully theirs since time immemorial?
So I ask again, what is unlawful or immoral about the qoliqoli bill?



Tui Savu,
Honiara,

Charter ‘to heal racism wounds’

WWW.FIJIDAILYPOST.COM -5-Jun-2007

THE two military takeovers of governments in 1987 and the civilian led coup in 2000, both heightened and deeply magnified the dominance of race-based politics and governance resulting in a severe erosion of confidence and massive exodus abroad of the country’s skilled and educated people, mainly Indians.
This is one of the background factors that led to the compilation of “A PEOPLE’S CHARTER FOR CHANGE & PROGRESS”, according to a statement by the Information Ministry.
The Charter in its draft form was made possible with the support of Government ministries.

The overall objective of the Charter will be “To rebuild Fiji into a non-racial, culturally vibrant and united, well governed, truly democratic nation that seeks progress and prosperity through merit based equality of opportunity and peace.

The Charter highlights that in the Post-1987 coup period related developments caused severe ruptures in the very fabric of Fiji society, resulting in a loss of confidence that has been debilitating Fiji’s economy and hampering developmental progress and prosperity.

It is noted that while the 1997 Constitution was somewhat more progressive and broadly more representative of Fiji’s communities in the political governance arrangements that it promulgated, it maintained the race-based architecture with emphasis on the communal in the make up of Parliament and put in place structures that continued to emphasise racial divisions in Fiji society.

The Charter also highlights that more recently in the wake of the 2000 civilian–led overthrow of government the military had initially installed the Interim Civilian Government.

Then following the 2001 and 2006 General Elections, Fiji’s political governance has been characterised by the politicisation of the prison services, criminal justice system and the public service.

There was a significant weakening of the key institutions of governance, pervasive increase in corruption, serious economic decline, a significant deterioration in the law and order situation and a deepening of the racial schism in the country.

Copies of the Chater have been circulated to various civil society groups, the media, businesses and corporate bodies with the intention that they come on board to promote it and help push it to realisation.

Bills good for Fijians: Ro Teimumu

www.fijilive.co -Wednesday May 30, 2007
Ousted Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa maintains that the controversial 'Qoliqoli Bill' and other so-called pro indigenous Fijian Bills are "good for Fijians" and should be reintroduced. She said even though more consultation was needed on the Bills, the military should not have taken her Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua-led Government by force.

"This was a major factor in the takeover of government," said Ro Teimumu, who is also the highest ranking chief in one of Fijis three confederacies.

"But this did not give the military powers to take over the government because we were in the process of holding more talks with them.

"It was the people's idea that such Bills be brought about after a survey was carried out by the SDL government and we were acting on the mandate of the people."

Ro Teimumu admits there were a few 'hitches' in the Qoliqoli Bill that could have been changed before consultation with other stakeholders was done.

"We had believed that what we were doing was good for the indigenous Fijians and that it would help them greatly."

However, the military says that such programmes would not benefit all races as it will benefit only the elite indigenous Fijians.

Military spokesman, Major Neumi Leweni had earlier said the SDL government was creating racial tension by introducing such Bills.

Fijian Lands Could be Under Threat

Land ownership questioned

www.fijitimes.com - May 28, 2007

THE claim that about 90 per cent of land in Fiji is native land is questionable, according to a paper presented by a lawyer at a seminar in Suva.

Ba lawyer Doctor Mohammed Shamsud Dean Sahu Khan said it raised important legal and constitutional issues which needed to be addressed.

"We should avoid unnecessary future scrutiny of such matters by the court or other authorities," Mr Sahu Khan said.

He had presented a paper earlier this month on the legal status of different types and/or ownership of land and status of sea, waters and reefs in Fiji from the Deed of Cession in 1874 to today.

"We must avoid matters arising out of any legislation such as the Qoliqoli Bill to be an international issue.

"We should nip it in the bud and take all precautions before a Bill is debated in Parliament and emotions overtake rationality."

Mr Sahu Khan said Clause Four of the Deed of Cession provided that "absolute proprietorship of all land not shown to be alienated so as to become bona fide property of Europeans or other foreigners or not in actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe or not actually required for probable future support and maintenance of some chief or tribe shall be and hereby declared to be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors". He said it was important to note that the only land not vested in the Crown was land as at October 10, 1974 not alienated to Europeans or other foreigners and land which was as at that date not in actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe and land actually required for the probable future support and maintenance of a chief or tribe.

"It does not refer to any constructive use or occupation. This obviously refers to land close to villages, etc.

"Actual use or occupation must mean land literally occupied or used such as village and house sites, etc, and small farms or land used for teitei, etc. This must have been so in order that the users and occupiers of land were not deprived of the same."

Mr Sahu Khan cited as example Nailaga or Votua Village in Ba which definitely could not have included land at Maururu, Veisaru or Koronubu which were many kilometres away from the land which was used or occupied by some chief or tribe.

He said all bare, vacant and unoccupied land could not have been included in the exemption provision referred above by any interpretation.

"Everyone must address the above issues first before embarking on any radical legislations such as the Qoliqoli Bill," Dr Sahu Khan said.

Lawyer Kitione Vuataki said native land was intact and had not been threatened in any way.

He said native land was protected under the Native Lands Act, Constitution and judiciary.

Mr Vuataki said reports in the media quoting him as saying native land was under threat, was misleading and sensationalised.

He said he did not agree with Mr Sahu Khan's presentation but it did not mean native land was not threatened.

The fear of losing the land

WWW.FIJILIVE.COM -26-May-2007

I had a disturbing call from home yesterday.
My uncle and head of our tokatoka (clan) was surprised by a news item he heard broadcast on Thursday night.
That news item was about some concerns that Fijians who own native land stand to lose their land if a current move being orchestrated by a prominent Indo-Fijian lawyer based in Ba is allowed to go ahead.
It quoted Fijian lawyer Kitione Vuataki, who had raised the concerns after he intercepted a circulated letter by Dr Sahu Khan calling for the setting up of a three-member committee to review legislations covering native land in Fiji.
I told my uncle that the news he heard was true – there’s concern being showed by prominent indigenous lawyers and some landowners on the issue.
I also told him that all Fijians who own land must now stand up and raise their concern about such a move happening.
The risk of losing the very thing that we can fall back on and is part of our livelihood is a reality – now that the only body that can ever oppose that move has been suspended.
Vuataki had raised the issue with the media on Thursday in Suva.
He also raised the concern in line with the current suspension of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) – drawing a comparison to what happened way back in 1904. Back then Governor Everard Ferdinand Imthurn suspended the GCC for six years.
That gave him time to amend the Native Lands Act which resulted in Fijians losing 200,000 acres of land.
“The law at that time was for him to call the GCC which he did not do for six years in which he amended the Native Lands Act from which the Fijian people lost 200 thousand acres of land,” Vuataki revealed on Thursday.
Vuataki said the fact that there was a similar move being orchestrated now was very worrying.
“Really worrying when you think about the fact that the GCC is now suspended,” he added.
Vuataki and fellow Fijian lawyer Ratu Save Komaisavai have gone to court to try to stop such a move happening.
A copy of the paper presented to the Fiji Law Society by Dr Sahu Khan clearly stated his belief that Fijians should not be deemed to own 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the lands in Fiji, which have been classified as native land.
Khan argued in his paper that Clause 4 of the Deed of Cession provided: “That the absolute proprietorship of all lands not shown to be alienated so as to have become bona fide property of Europeans or other foreigners or not in the actual use or occupation of some chief or tribe or not actually required for the probably future support and maintenance of some chief or tribe shall be and hereby declared to be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors.”
Khan argued that the only land which was not vested in the Crown are:
* lands as at 10th October 1874 not alienated to the Europeans or other foreigners;
* lands which were as at 10th October, 1874, not in the actual use or occupation of some chiefs or tribe; and
* lands actually required for the probable support and maintenance of some chiefs or tribe.
Khan’s argument goes on to say that actual use or occupation must mean those lands which literally occupied or used such as villages and house sites and the small farms or teitei.
He argues that such lands included Nailaga village or Votua village in Ba. But lands in Maururu, Veisaru or Koronubu, which are many kilometres away from the lands which were actually used or occupied are not included in this, saying that all lands that are bare and unoccupied could not be included in the exemption provision.
Khan then further stated that it was important that a determination is made on which lands in Fiji came within the exemptions referred to in Clause 4 of the Deed of Cession before one could even think of determining who shall fall or qualify for the ownership of lands in Fiji.
Khan also slammed the Qoliqoli Bill pushed through by the deposed SDL government, saying that the Bill was discriminatory against foreigners and only favoured Fijians.
Vuataki and co believe that unless something is done now to stop the move proposed by Khan and his buddies, Fijians will lose more than just their land.
Now, what my uncle was worked up about is the fact that our Tokatoka Kabe and Mataqali Dromudromu of Tuatua Village in Koro own a lot of land.
Our family land in Kabe extends from the beachfront right up to the Kuitarua Peak, where a Telecom Fiji station is currently located.
Our tokatoka is quite large in number and our forefathers had ensured that all my uncles and aunties had their share of the land while they were growing up.
The land is used manily for farming, except for Kabe, where we had lived while I was growing up.
Over the years we had been planning to divert the land into a tourism spot since we have a beautiful beachfront, lush forest and water sources readily available.
What my uncle was concerned about was the news he had heard.
The fact that we might lose that land did not go down well with him.
That news brought out the nationalist within him.
The fact that an Indo-Fijian lawyer is behind the move that could see a repetition of what happened between 1904 and 1911 got him worked up.
He said that Fijians have been very accommodating. On our island we’ve lived with a number of Indo-Fijian families.
We treat them as members of our community, we help them out when they need help and they in turn assist us when we need their assistance.
My uncle also stated the fact that in the past Indo-Fijian leaders have always been respectful of Fijians, and this has been reciprocated.
But he feels that time is changing and there are many “foreigners” now trying to determine our future for us.
He said that people should refer to the Bible and follow tales passed down over the years.
Fiji was for Fijians to rule and decide and India was for Indians to live in.
The fact that Indo-Fijians are now a major race in the country does not give them the right to decide anything about the land that we hold dear to our hearts, my uncle said.
I tried to calm him down, told him that the news was just that and nothing had been decided as yet.
I also told him that Momo Frank no doubt would be weighing his options, especially about the land issue, knowing full well how sentimental and emotional Fijians are about their land.
And I also urged him to get the people back home to pray about the issue and ask God for divine intervention.
I said that I would keep him on tab and update him if something comes up.
After that long conversation on the phone, I sat back and reflected on my uncle’s worried tone.
It then hit me on the head – Fijians are really left bare without the GCC to protect them.
Trends now slowly materialising show that surprises will be part of Fiji’s future.
Good or bad we will just have to wait and see.
There’s one thing I can testify to though!
Now, more than ever before, I am starting to really appreciate God’s gift of land to my family.


ILIESA TORA

Fijian Land Under Threat

Native land under threat: GCC lawyers
www.fijidailypost.com 25-May-2007

THE lawyers representing the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), Kitione Vuataki, and Savenaca Komaisavai, have alleged that there are moves to amend entrenched legislations affecting the ownership lands in Fiji.

The two yesterday said that prominent Ba lawyer, Doctor Shamsud Dean Sahu Khan, presented a paper to the Fiji Law Society two weeks ago calling for a special committee to be formed to thoroughly examine the legislation affecting lands in Fiji.

Vuataki said that with the council suspended by the interim regime “the detriment faced now by Fijians is that the current situation is a parallel analogy of the time of Governor Everard Ferdinand imthurn, who suspend the GCC for six years from 1904 to 1911.”

“The law that time was for him to call the GCC which he did not do for six years in which he amended the Native Lands Act from which the Fijian people lost 200 thousand acres of land,” Vuataki said.

“Right now there is a paper being circulated in the Fiji Law Society that the lands Fijians are entitled to are those lands their villages and their plantation are located while the rest of the land should go to the State.”

Vuataki said that calls for the amendment of the Native Land Act were coming at a time when the GCC is not present to defend the rights of the Fijian people. Efforts to get comments from Dr Shamsud Dean Sahu Khan proved futile yesterday.

“We are going to court because we don’t want to lose any more land like the 200 thousand acres with the suspension of the GCC,” Ratu Kitione said.

Meanwhile, two more chiefs have joined as plaintiffs in challenging the suspension of the council.

Ratu Epenisa Cakobau and Ratu Ratavo Lalabalavu have joined with the lawyers acting for the chiefs citing Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama as a defendant in their amended motion.

The lawyers filed their amended legal papers in court yesterday with the hearing to be held on June 29.

The two lawyers are representing suspended GCC chairman, Tui Tavua, Ratu Ovini Bokini, and Nadroga paramount chief, Na Kalevu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu, who are seeking an injunction to stop the Interim Fijian Affairs Minister, Ratu Epeli Ganilau, from reviewing the GCC membership following the suspension of the august body.

By IMANUELI TUMOI

Fijians Stading Up for GCC Against Illegal Fiji regime

Lawyers file more papers in GCC case
www.fijilive.com - Thursday May 24, 2007

A class action law suit between Fiji’s chiefs and the interim government will be called for hearing on June 29 after more papers were filed in the High Court today.

Lautoka lawyer, Kitione Vuetaki who will represent sacked members of the Great Council of Chiefs says the filling of papers was necessary to allow the chiefs to meet without any interference.

He said that the interim government had no right to terminate the august body because they had no authority.

He also claimed to have obtained a copy of a proposed paper written by Ba lawyer, Doctor Shamshud Dean Sahu Khan, where he has proposed to the Fiji Law Society to appoint a three member committee to recommend to the government to change the land legislation to ensure that anyone can utilise the idle native land.

"We need to get this case off the ground because the indigenous Fijians are loosing out in with the ‘current leadership’.

"More than 200,000 acres of indigenous land will be lost due to the sacking of the GCC and there is no law to stop this because the interim government is having their own way."

He said the GCC will not be there to protect the people’s interest after the august body was suspended two months ago.

"Right now the chiefs cannot stand up to protect the interest and rights of the people after they were humiliated by the interim government."

"The protection of the land is at stake and we must do something to see that this is not lost," Vuetaki said.

He said that the Interim Fijian Affairs Minister, Ratu Epeli Ganilau had no right to terminate the chiefs because they were serving the people.

"It’s a disgrace that this has happened and this is the first time ever that a government has sacked members of the GCC."

Vuetaki will be representing Ratu Apenisa Cakobau, Ratu Ovini Bokini, Ratu Ratavo Lalabalavu and Ratu Sakiusa Makutu.

He also said that more chiefs will be joining soon.

Truth About Qoliqoli & Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bills

Qoliqoli Bill to be tabled in Parliament 

Fiji’s Cabinet has approved the Qoliqoli (traditional fishing ground) Bill for tabling in Parliament.

In his submission, Minister for Fijians Affairs, Lands and Provincial Development, Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu told Cabinet that the Bill marked the culmination of about 125 years of preparations and expectations by the Fijian chiefs and their tribes over their traditional customary qoliqoli rights.

"The Bill reconfirms the ownership of usage rights previously enjoyed by qoliqoli owners over their respective qoliqoli areas."

Ratu Naiqama said the principal objective of the legislation was to transfer to qoliqoli owners from the State, the proprietary ownership of their respective qoliqoli areas which are currently owned by the State. "The transfer will be by operation of law and not through ordinary conveyance.

A Cabinet statement said Ratu Naiqama explained that claims for compensation for past use of qoliqoli areas would be disallowed. "This is because currently all land that is to be transferred to the qoliqoli owners is owned by the State, and as such, the qoliqoli owners cannot claim for land that they do not currently own." Ratu Naiqama said that under the legislation, land within qoliqoli areas would be deemed to be native reserve and may only be de-reserved through declaration by the Minister upon the request of the qoliqoli owners.

A major feature of the Bill is the establishment of the Qoliqoli Commission through the reconstitution of the Native Fisheries Commission (NFC). "The Qoliqoli Commission will issue licences to undertake commercial fishing in any qoliqoli area, and will also appoint qoliqoli guardians to see that provisions of the Act are enforced in the qoliqoli areas. Ratu Naiqama said no commercial fishing licence issued for operation within qoliqoli waters would be issued without prior consultations with the Qoliqoli Commission which would insist on certain conditions. "No commercial operation can be undertaken within qoliqoli areas without prior approval of the NLTB after consultations with the Qoliqoli Commission and the qoliqoli owners."

He explained that in cases where commercial operation was approved, income from the operations would be paid into a trust fund for the benefit of qoliqoli owners. Ratu Naiqama emphasised that ownership rights being conferred do not include and are subject to: the right of public access to the foreshores; the right of passage recognised and guaranteed under international law; any legal interests, including leases and licences granted over such qoliqoli areas; and, the right to the use of the waters within qoliqoli boundaries.

"Fears that transferring the proprietary rights to qoliqoli owners might affect the free passages of boats/vessels in Fiji waters are ill-founded. "This is because firstly hardly any vessel covered by this protective principle needs passage over qoliqoli areas, and, secondly, because this right is especially preserved in this proposed legislation." The legislation will come into force when preparations of all subsidiary laws and resourcing requirements are completed.

Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill goes to Parliament
www. fijilive.com Thursday August 03, 2006

The Indigenous Claims Tribunal (ICT) Bill that seeks to address long standing grievances of native landowners has been given the go ahead for tabling in Parliament. 

Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Senator Qoriniasi Bale in his submission to Cabinet said native landowners claimed that part of their land had been acquired by early settlers through means which were fraudulent, dubious or unjust. 

"These are the grievances which native landowners have requested successive administrations to address and resolve. 

"With passage of time, other legal doctrines such as time bar and indefeasibility of title have made this problem increasingly difficult to resolve." 

Senator Bale said the ICT Bill was, therefore, an enabling legislation to provide a firm legal foundation for Government’s core objective of providing a legal forum to which aggrieved claimants may refer their claims and grievances for formal enquiry and rulings on whether or not they were justified as a matter of fact. "Where such claims are established, and where so recommended by the Tribunal, then the claimants may under the process of negotiated settlements provided in the legislation, agree on a fair and equitable redress. "This will undoubtedly be a major consideration given that the time of the alleged wrong was more than 100 years ago. 

"If, after careful analysis, the original transaction is proven deficient, then a practical and holistic solution must be recommended by the Tribunal to address the claimant’s grievances, while at the same time not disturbing the indefeasible title to the current proprietor.

 "If the current title holder is interested in offering the property for sale voluntarily, then the claimant ought to be given the right of first refusal through a buy-back scheme assisted by Government based on sale on open market value." Senator Bale said that should compensation be the only redress available to a successful claimant, the usual practice which was also recognised in this legislation was that the party whose action/inaction was the cause of the original defect paid the compensation. "If it can be shown that the Government, for example, was at fault then convention dictates that it should pay accordingly. "The question of how this figure is arrived at and whether the amount is justifiable and can be met will be carefully reflected in subsidiary legislation mainly dealing with negotiated settlements between Government through the State Law Office and the claimants concerned." Senator Bale said currently, the NLTB was the main institution, by virtue of statute, that received and recorded the schedules of all claims. "However, given the inadequacy of the current legal provisions and structure to address the grievances already submitted to the NLTB, the Indigenous Claims Tribunal under the Bill is the ideal option." 

Senator Bale said that although the Bill covers only land claims, it was cited as the Indigenous Claims Tribunal Bill because it was envisaged that the legislation would be used in future to include processes for addressing and removing indigenous grievances which have caused justifiable discontent and instability amongst Fijians for far too long. 

The Tribunal will be chaired by a retired Judge or a person qualified as a judge under the Constitution. Senator Bale said the Tribunal’s recommendations were not mandatory orders or directions such as those given by the Courts, but were solutions which were subject to amicable negotiations and settlements aimed at rectifying injustices of the past. He further said the Tribunal would also be empowered to assume powers, with necessary modifications, given to Commissions of Inquiries under the Commission of Inquires Act.

Fiji Deed of Cession to Great Britain

THE DEED OF CESSION OF FIJI TO GREAT BRITAIN

10TH OCTOBER, 1874

Note. - One original of the Deed of Cession was retained in Fiji, and until the late thirties of the present century was in the archives of the Colonial Government. It began to show signs of wear, however; and photostat facsimiles - from one of which the following text is taken - were made for local use, the original being placed in safe keeping.

The two interlineations, referred to in the Interpreter's certificate, initialled by him in the margin, and indicated below by asterisks, were as follows: (1) in Sir Hercules Robinson's title, the adjective honorable, used for the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, was altered to distinguished; (2) the article the was transposed from a position before bona fide to that given in the text. The only other alterations were the correction of certain individual letters, and the deletion of the phrase and the laws, which had been duplicated in copying.

Instrument of Cession of the Islands of Fiji by Thakombau, styled Tui Viti and Vuni Valu, and by the other high Chiefs of the said islands to Her Most gracious Majesty Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c &c &c:

Whereas divers of the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland have from time to time settled in the Fijian group of islands and have acquired property or certain pecuniary interests therein; And Whereas the Fijian Chief Thakombau styled Tui Viti and Vuni Valu and the other high native chiefs of the said islands are desirious [sic] of securing the promotion of civilization and Christianity and of increasing trade and industry within the said islands; And Whereas it is obviously desirable, in the interests as well of the native as of the white population, that order and good government should be established therein; And Whereas the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs have conjointly and severally requested Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland aforesaid to undertake the government of the said islands henceforth; And Whereas in order to the establishment of British government within the said islands the said Tui Viti and other the several high chiefs thereof for themselves and their respective tribes have agreed to cede the possession of and the dominion and sovereignty over the whole of the said islands and over the inhabitants thereof and have requested Her said Majesty to accept such cession,- which cession the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs, relying upon the justice and generosity of Her said Majesty, have determined to tender unconditionally,- and which cession on the part of the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs is witnessed by their execution of these presents and by the formal surrender of the said territory to Her said Majesty; And Whereas His Excellency Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, Knight Commander of the most distinguished* order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor Commander in Chief and Vice Admiral of The British Colony of New South Wales and its dependencies, and Governor of Norfolk Island, hath been authorised and deputed by Her said Majesty to accept on Her behalf the said Cession:

Now These Presents Witness,

1. That the possession of and full sovereignty and dominion over the whole of the group of islands in the South Pacific Ocean known as the Fijis (and lying between the parallels of latitude of fifteen degrees South and twenty two degrees South of the Equator and between the Meridians of longitude of one hundred and seventy seven degrees West and one hundred and seventy five degrees East of the meridian of Greenwich) and over the inhabitants thereof, together with the possession of and sovereignty over the waters adjacent thereto and of and over all ports harbours havens roadsteads rivers estuaries and other waters and all reefs and foreshores within or adjacent thereto, are hereby ceded to and accepted on behalf of Her said Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland her heirs and successors, to the intent that from this time forth the said islands and the waters reefs and other places as aforesaid lying within or adjacent thereto may be annexed to and be a possession and dependency of the British Crown.

2. That the form or constitution of government, the means of the maintenance thereof, and the laws* and regulations to be administered within the said islands shall be such as Her Majesty shall prescribe and determine.

3. That, pending the making by Her Majesty as aforesaid of some more permanent provision for the government of the said islands His Excellency Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, in pursuance of the powers in him vested and with the consent and at the request of the said Tui Viti and other high Chiefs the ceding parties hereto, shall establish such temporary or provisional government as to him may seem meet.

4. That the absolute proprietorship of all lands not shown to be now alienated so as to have become bona fide the* property of Europeans or other foreigners or not now in the actual use or occupation of some Chief or tribe or not actually required for the probable future support and maintenance of some chief or tribe shall be and is hereby declared to be vested in Her said Majesty her heirs and successors.

5. That Her Majesty shall have power, whenever it shall be deemed necessary for public purposes, to take any lands upon payment to the proprietor of a reasonable sum by way of compensation for the deprivation thereof.

6. That all now existing public buildings houses and offices, all enclosures and other pieces or parcels of land now set apart or being used for public purposes, and all stores fittings and other articles now being used in connection with such purposes are hereby assigned transferred and made over to Her said Majesty.

7. That on behalf of Her Majesty His Excellency Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson promises (1.) that the rights and interests of the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs the ceding parties hereto shall be recognised so far as is and shall be consistent with British Sovereignty and Colonial form of government, (2.) that all questions of financial liabilities and engagements shall be carefully scrutinized and dealt with upon principles of justice and sound public policy, (3.) that all claims to title to land by whomsoever preferred and all claims to pensions or allowances whether on the part of the said Tui Viti and other high chiefs or of persons now holding office under them or any of them shall in due course be fully investigated and equitably adjusted.

In Witness whereof, the whole of the contents of this instrument of Cession having been, previously to the execution of the same, interpreted and explained to the ceding parties hereto by David Wilkinson Esquire, the interpreter nominated by the said Tui Viti and the other high chiefs and accepted as such interpreter by the said Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, the respective parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals.

Done at Levuka this tenth day of October, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy four.

		Cakobau R. Tui Viti and Vunivalu	(Seal)
		Maafu	(Seal)
Hercules Robinson	(Seal)	Tui Cakau	(Seal)
		Ratu Epeli	(Seal)
		Vakawalitabua Tui Bua	(Seal)
		Savenaca	(Seal)
		Esekele	(Seal)
		B. V. Tui Dreketi	(Seal)
		Ritova	(Seal)
		Kato-nivere	(Seal)
		Ratu Kini	(Seal)
		Matanitobua	(Seal)
		Nacagilevu	(Seal)

I hereby certify that, prior to the execution of the above Instrument of Cession - which execution I do hereby attest - I fully and faithfully interpreted and explained to the ceding parties the whole of the contents of the said document, the interlineations appearing on line 33 of page 1 and on line 30 of page 2 having been first made, and that such contents were fully understood and assented to by the said ceding parties. Prior to the execution of the said instrument of Cession I wrote out an interpretation of the same in the Fijian language, which interpretation I read to the Tui Viti and other high chiefs the ceding parties, who one and all approved thereof. A copy of such interpretation is hereto annexed marked A. Dated this tenth day of October, A.D. 1874.

D. WILKINSON

Chief Interpreter

The interpreter named in the foregoing instrument of Cession

Democracy: Which Model?

www.sun.com.fj - 8 May 2007 - By Suresh Prasad

There seems to be a mystifying euphoria among the vocal pro-democracy individuals within the NGO circles in direct proportion to the blatant international arm twisting and economic aid blackmail being applied to Fiji's Interim Government to hold national elections sooner than later as a step towards democracy. It's as though the next election would be a panacea and a hasty return to the much touted democracy, a remedy to widespread and entrenched corruption and ineffective racist governance. These individuals, who incidentally were conspicuously silent during the turmoil caused by the 1987 Rabuka coup and the siege and hostage taking of the entire Chaudhry government in 2000 by Speight, have yet to clearly articulate what brand of democracy is being flaunted this time around. Are we talking about a full and fair parliamentary democracy of one person-one vote or a restoration of the biased and divisive model of democracy that has spawned corruption and racism to the benefit of a handful of individuals behind the façade of 'Fijian interest'. Perhaps those individuals and 'friendly' nations that are shouting the loudest for a quick pathway to democracy need to pause and examine what is their understanding of democracy in Fiji given that Mr Qarase and others labelled it a 'foreign bird' quite some time ago.
Is it the same model that has entrenched racial divides? And is it now is being brought back to perpetuate the politics of race? Or perhaps this time around we will have a brand of democracy that the 'big brother' nations have themselves strived over the years. It is ironic that the very vociferous pro-democracy advocates in Fiji, including the 'purists' within the legal fraternity and those shouting over the fence from our neighbouring nations, have not spouted their views on which model of democracy they contemplate imposing on Fiji. It is equally ironic that the same self-styled bastions of democracy, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, while on one hand want a quick restoration of this rather elusive democracy but on the other hand have adopted obstructionist positions, under the guise of smart sanctions, to block the very public service and statutory appointments that will propel Fiji towards true democracy in the fullness of time. What ought to be paramount for Fiji to survive and become self-reliant is to guarantee good governance based on fundamental rule of law and popular sovereignty. Any impetuous and ill-considered return to parliamentary democracy will continue to entrench Fiji as a subservient nation despite our gaining independence almost four decades ago.
We haven't, it seems, learned from other hasty returns to democracy after the previous coups. The apologists of the 'friendly' nations within the NGOs in Fiji are gearing up once again to appease the 'big brother' nations under the guise of getting the aid tap running again; not realising that this perpetual 'kere-kere' will forever condemn Fiji to the vicious cycle of foreign aid dependency and thus prevent it from becoming a truly self -sufficient sovereign nation. An effective democracy sits on the platform of grass-root consultations, if need be through the tried and tested process of national referendum. Should this not be the process that we should subscribe to in order to bring back a meaningful model of democracy in Fiji? The gullible foreign media it seems has fallen into the trap of hypocritical cry for freedom from a handful of NGO employees living the high life on the funds of equally gullible overseas donor governments. Shouldn't there be a referendum to seek the view of the silent majority who are after all are the ones who once again will endure the pain of this jaundiced democracy that is being shoved down Fiji's rather sore throat as if this so called to return to democracy will resolve and clean all that Bainimarama and his team have set out to do.
Or is there yet another agenda being followed by our big brother nations with the support of their well-paid stooges within the well-endowed NGO ranks of keeping Fiji racially polarised by bringing back the Qarase brand of democracy. Is there a hidden agenda to perpetually keep this fledging nation in a kind of economic subservience to be exploited at whim by our suddenly concerned neighbours? Does this agenda include creative and systematic destabilisation of Fiji to warrant foreign military intervention, perhaps by RAMSI, to bring back a semblance of hypocritical civil order and to restore democracy…the Qarase brand? A good example is the hastily drafted and adopted constitution which elevated the chiefs from their traditional advisory roles to matters pertaining to native welfare. Instead the Reeves Constitution burdened them with an ill-conceived responsibility of a constitutional role within the modern parliamentary apparatus. With all due respect to the traditional collective wisdom the chiefs might have, it was quite an inappropriate constitutional step to have dragged them into a national legislative role. Was the constitutional agenda then surreptitiously high-jacked by a select few racists with corrupt parallel agendas of their own or was it done to appease the chiefs and further entrench the politics of race, once again, to suit their own egotistical racist- personal agendas?
There seems to be a symbiotic link between individual wealth creation in Fiji albeit by corrupt means, and the politics of race. We can now only speculate and contemplate on the reasoning behind the haste with Fiji is being urged to embrace the previous model of divisive democracy at the insistence of other nations. The elevation of an unrepresentative and unelected group of chiefs to this national constitutional role is quite unique to Fiji, given that this elitist organisation, the Council of Chiefs, does not represent the other half of Fiji's population comprising significantly of Indo-Fijians and other minority races. It is debateable whether individually or collectively the chiefs, unrepresentative and unelected as they are, have the capacity to even represent effectively the native interests in the context of internationally accepted democratic practices and protocols. The chiefs have repeatedly found themselves lacking in an array of modern competencies and capacities to grapple with complex issues emanating out of democratic model of governance that was so hastily thrust upon us. It is farcical to even consider the notion by the architects of this constitution that a wide-ranging, full and fair consultation took place before its adoption by the parliament.
It is quite evident that the unscrupulous and corrupt Qarase government effectively utilised the lack of capacities within the chiefly ranks to push its own agenda under the guise of traditional consultative protocols. This dichotomy between the traditional chiefly role, responsibilities and popular political sovereignty needs to be resolved; possibly through a review of the constitution. I am not suggesting an abrogation of the constitution in its entirety but a meaningful and constructive review. Any constitutional document needs to be regularly reviewed, hence in modern democracies the appointment of various parliamentary review committees as a fairly standard process of updating and making it appropriately relevant to the ever changing needs of an evolving society. The constitutional weaknesses and oversights cannot be allowed to be exploited by charlatans to the detriment of the nation. The so-called road map to democracy, in its final form, must delineate not only existing political constraints to good governance but also provide appropriate remedies for their resolution. Post-1987 coups have corrupted the rule of law in Fiji and previous ill-considered returns to the same divisive brand of democracy haven't assisted Fiji in moving forward.
Fiji's vulnerability and exposure in this context is akin to a wrecked ship that needs to be refitted to sail once again the treacherous sea of democracy; particularly treacherous, if we allow our big brother nations control of the tiller. That's the commander's dilemma. He's to prove his government's collective mettle in the full glare of rather unhelpful big brother scrutiny and amidst equally unhelpful court challenges seeking an examination of the legality or otherwise of his December 5 takeover and subsequent actions by his government. I am sure the learned judges adjudicating on these matters will be familiar with this Latin saying by Publilius Syrus: "Honesta turpitude est pro causa bona" meaning for a 'good cause, wrongdoing is virtuous'. It also goes without saying that in attempting to tread a path of justice and fairness one must be able to distinguish between the venial and the venal - between ordinary wrong and outsized wrongdoings. And here I contend that laws have very little, if anything, to do with justice. Bainimarama has an amply qualified, experienced and committed team of eminent persons in his government. This group has decades of experience in effective political governance. Invariably, with such an august team to assist and support him, the commander, we hope, will exercise sound, objective and mature judgement in all matters pertaining to restoration of democracy in Fiji. Dr Prasad, a career academic, is engaged in community capacity building and regeneration projects both in Australia and overseas.

l Dr Prasad, a career academic, is engaged in community capacity building and regeneration projects both in Australia and overseas.

GCC and Fijians

GREAT COUNCIL OF CHIEFS & THE FIJIANS

A blogger writes...

It appears that whenever the indigenous cry out for what is their's, the rest label it an obstacle to progress/modernization/civilty.

The Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) are the voice of the Fiji landowners, the Fiji Indigenous people in whatever ruling body of the nation.

This heritage from the Fijian Chiefs that ensured this, cemented the indigenous rights to the governing of their land, their country and it consequences on their culture and future generations.

To hear that the illegal AG Kaiyum was quoted in Brussels as saying to the EU that "the GCC needed to be abolished because it served no purpose in the ruling of the nation", makes me very angry and sad. More sad then anything.

The anger stems from my deeply rooted cultural pride in my origins.The sadness, from the ignorance of a non-indigenous abolishing the most powerful traditional ruling body of my land, in front of a direct ancestor of one of the greatest indigenous leaders of our country.

That this was said in front of Epeli Nailatikau(not a ratu in my eyes) depicts a sad picture of the deep divide in our nation.Not just the racial divide between Indians and Fijians - a concept that has been raped and plundered by politicians from each side for their own personal benefit to no advantage to us the ordinary citiszens.

I'm referring to the invisible victims of this divide - the seemingly growing rift amongst the Indigenous Fijians.

Fijian culture is unique in the world, nowhere do you find a culture that is as rich and diverse as that of the indigenous Fijian culture.

It's many dialects is the best example of it's diversity, a diversity that was rightfully respected by the colonists. This very diversity meant that a group of leaders and advisors were required for the indigenous body to rule or be ruled harmoniously. It is my belief that this very reason is why the Bose Levu Vakaturaga needs to exist to be the voice of our indigenous people.

The Fijian's cultural perception of the pros and cons of the GCC has always been around, since I can remember. The fact that people were entitled to their own opinions of the greatest indigenous body without reprisal showed the democracy we had...then!

It appears that now, as a result of the racial influence on the perceptions of the GCC and it's need to exist, the indigenous Fijian is now going through a historic phase in its traditional history.No where in Fiji history has it's Great Council of Chiefs been publicly slated.

No where in it's short history has anyone been allowed to degrade this Council as much as this illegal regime has.With the Illegal Military regime publicly stating that they will abolish this Great Council and raking up support from various corners of the nation, the indigenous Fijian is now hard pressed to make a stand.

Either stand to protect their culture, their heritage and future representation in any governing body; or abolish this council because it stands in the way of the illegal military regime.There is really no other choice left for the indigenous Fijian.

And no other reason, no matter what vesumona the illegal military regime try to say regarding their reasons for abolishing the GCC, it's simply because the Great Council of Chiefs has acknowledged that the military regime is illegal and that this country should not be ruled by them.

So will you stand and protect the Great Council of Chiefs; or let people like Kaiyum, Chaudhry, Voreqe, Nailatikau, Epeli Ganilau take your traditional values apart and throw it back in the face of your ancestors.

Fiji Coup Culture - Where to from here?

Fiji – Where to from here?

Presentation to the Leadership Fiji program, 21 March, 2007

Sandra Tarte, University of the South Pacific.

Introduction

First I would like to say that it is an honor to be talking to you today. I have heard a lot about Leadership Fiji over the past years and it is a special privilege to be invited to participate in this year’s program.

I have been given the challenging and I think unenviable task of looking ahead: to talk on the question ‘Where to from here?’ I believe the answer to that question will depend very much on the patterns that have shaped and continue to shape our nation. It is not that the future is already written, but our history and our recent past will have a lot to do with determining where we go from here.

My colleagues who have already spoken to you today have no doubt given you a good grounding in some of the main historical and political developments that have shaped Fiji. What I want to do in the limited time we have is to focus on just one aspect of our politics: what some have termed our ‘coup culture’. I would suggest that if there is one thing that will determine our future as a nation (one thing that is in our control that is) it is this.

By most counts, we have had four coups in the past 20 years: two coups in 1987; one civilian seizure of power followed by a military take-over in 2000 (a bit more complicated); and this coup at the end of 2006 (more complicated still). I want to, in the first part of this presentation, analyze our so-called coup culture by comparing and contrasting the December 2006 coup and the three previous ones. I will then use this to provide some discussion of the future directions for Fiji.

What was ‘different’ about the latest coup?

1. Previous coups were carried out in the name of indigenous rights and were broadly popular among ethnic Fijians and the Fijian institutions (the Great Council of Chiefs, the Methodist Church etc). This coup has been carried out in the name of good governance and anti-corruption (like in Thailand last year). It hasn’t even been called a coup by the military. It has been called a ‘clean-up campaign’. Moreover it has expressly defied – if not ridiculed and marginalized – traditional Fijian institutions. The most compelling feature of this coup – and its greatest potential threat – lies in the resounding silence of Fijian nationalism. The nationalist voice has been shut down/shut out, but the question remains for how long. That may depend on how effective the army propaganda is in winning the hearts and minds of (mainly) rural Fijians.

2. Previous coups put into office governments that were nationalist and pursued a nationalist (what some would label racist) agenda (eg affirmative action for indigenous Fijians, land reform for Fijians and so on). Indeed that was the problem with the previous government, according to the military commander, a problem which also fuelled a culture of corruption. This coup is – ostensibly – not only against nationalism, racism and affirmative action; it has also installed an interim government comprising people who have been the voice of multiculturalism and moderation; people who have promoted ethnic equality and liberal democratic politics.

3. Previous coups led to the abrogation of the existing constitution – usually to allow for a more pro-indigenous, racially-based constitution. This happened in 1987 (October). It also happened in May 2000 although the Courts subsequently ruled that the Constitution then was not in fact abrogated but still existed. There was no legal basis for abrogating it. So it remained in place. This time the military has not attempted to abrogate the constitution, claiming (rather incredulously) that all their actions have in fact been about preserving the constitution. There has even been a legal document drawn up purporting that the coup was legal because it overthrew an illegal regime (ie events dating from 2000 were in violation of the constitution). It remains to be seen, however, whether it becomes necessary to abrogate the constitution sometime in the future when these arguments are no longer tenable and actions and policies begin to directly contradict the constitution. We are also to see the outcome of any court challenge to the take-over.

4. Previous coups alienated the minority and non-indigenous races; in particular they were seen as ‘anti-Indian’ and they tended to unleash an anti-Indian backlash, manifesting at one level in attacks on rural Indian communities or on Indian businesses. This coup has not only silenced the nationalist Fijian elements (as noted above). It has been welcomed by many Indo-Fijians (grateful at least that this time they are not the targets). It is not that that this coup is seen as pro-Indian (although that is how some might see it); it is that this coup has been seen as redressing past injustices and grievances committed against Indo-Fijians in previous coups. And this somehow makes it right. But that does not mean the backlash won’t happen. As I mentioned earlier, the great concern now is that the Fijian nationalist elements that have been sidelined, represent a potentially dangerous and volatile force.

5. Previous coups created what appeared to be a fairly clear – if false – dichotomy in Fiji’s political culture: between promoting indigenous rights on the one hand and the rule of the law on the other. There has been a strongly held view amongst Fijians that the government or the state should remain in indigenous Fijian control in order to safeguard Fijian interests and lift Fijian socio-economic standards (such as through affirmative action programs). That was the force and the rationale behind past coups: to put back into power a Fijian leadership that had been removed by the ballot box. The rule of law was secondary to Fijian rule. Moreover human rights were viewed as antithetical to traditional, Fijian authority. This coup has created a different – and rather ironic – dichotomy: between social justice and good governance on the one hand, and the rule of law on the other. Past anti-coup/ pro-democracy activists have become transformed into skeptics of the relevance and importance of democracy in Fiji.

The arguments that are being heard now include the following:

• ‘It seems regrettable that those who have condemned the military takeover seem obsessed with the violation of democracy perspective and fail to recognize the anti-racist and pro-people aspects of the take-over, which could be termed the social justice perspective’. So this is seen as a ‘pro-people’ and ‘anti-racist’ coup, which makes it legitimate.
• Furthermore it has been claimed that the previous government (the one overthrown) ‘clearly showed how democracy could be manipulated to serve the narrow Fijian nationalist interests’. In other words, our democracy was not real democracy. It was in fact deeply flawed, especially when measured against Western standards, and based on the criteria of ‘free and fair elections’. Such a flawed democracy is not as sacred or as worthy of protection. One person even argued that we need a ‘benevolent dictator’ in Fiji to solve our problems. Until then we are not ready for democracy.

These arguments, by the way, were made by the so-called progressive NGOs and clergy.

This leads me to the question: What was the ‘same’ about the latest coup? For all the differences, noted above, there are still some depressing parallels.

1. The argument that Fiji was not ready for democracy has been heard each time we have had a coup. In 1987, the popular refrain of Fijian nationalists was ‘Democracy is a Foreign Flower’. What Fiji needed was a Fijian state, based on the prior rights of the indigenous Fijians, and elevating their institutions and their faith above others. Following the 2000 coup, the newly installed PM, Laisenia Qarase, suggested that Fiji was somewhere ‘in the middle of a journey between communal democracy’ (or traditional governance) and liberal democracy, adding that it would be better if Fiji never fully reached its destination. In the latest coup, people who had been outspoken critics of previous undemocratic overthrow of government started to make similar utterances: that Fiji was not a real democracy and perhaps we are not ready for democracy; perhaps what we need right now is a ‘benevolent dictator’ who will ‘heal the cancers of corruption and racialism’ so that ‘normal legalities can truly be reasserted’.

2. Another parallel is of course the political role of the military. This is the obvious common thread throughout. Whether the military is acting for indigenous rights; or whether it is acting against the forces of indigenous rights; whether it is called a clean up campaign or a coup; the common element is that the military and its leaders have arrogated to themselves a political role, above and beyond that prescribed by law. This pattern began in 1987; it seemed to subside in the 1990s; but the events of 19 May 2000 catapulted the army back onto the political stage – however reluctantly. Since 2000, the military has not fully departed this stage. It has been a political force – sometimes at the forefront, sometimes in the background; but always calling the shots (or trying to). To understand why this is so, you need to understand that it was the army which stopped the country from teetering over the edge of anarchy in 2000. The army – and its commander in particular – also experienced a bloody wake-up call with the mutiny attempt in November. To them the enemy – the threat – is still out there (radical nationalists and corrupt chiefs). That is why they must now take power, to stamp out the threat once and for all.

3. The third parallel relates to the human consequences of coups, whatever the cause they are promoting. You all are aware of the clampdown on certain freedoms (such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement). These almost always accompany a coup. In 2000 the crackdown on freedom of speech was perhaps less notable (because the army was seen as being on the ‘right’ side by most people). However there was widespread terrorizing of (mainly) Indo-Fijian rural communities by (Fijian) civilian groups (sometimes working with police collusion and protection). This time, the military is showing no tolerance for dissent. Critics – whether real or imagined – have been detained and ‘given a warning’ not to cause trouble. Two men, so far, have died as a result of this ‘warning’. Many have been intimidated (rather harshly) into silence. Human rights violations have been justified on the grounds of national security. This is a familiar catch-cry of military dictatorships that see any criticism as a potential threat to their control. More broadly, each of the coups we have experienced has created a new wave of injustice – people who have been wronged; people who have been victimized. This coup is no different. Injustices will breed resentments and conflicts and the need for yet another attempt at building reconciliation and peace and nation building.

4. The fourth parallel is that this coup, like all others, has exposed the deep divisions within our society – and created new ones. The divisions are racial –which have always marked Fijian society; they are class; they are regional. But ultimately they are political and in a post-coup environment these political divisions run very deep. And what makes the situation so unstable – I guess – is the absence of any peaceful channel to resolve or bridge these divisions. One side holds the guns and that is why they have power. The other side must be silent. In the absence of democratic institutions, there are no obvious ways – short of violence – of redressing this situation. New divisions have also manifested themselves in this latest coup. I alluded to this earlier when I mentioned how some human rights and civil society activists who have traditionally stood against coups have come out in support of (or at least sympathetic to) this one. This is due to their animosity towards the deposed government (and its policies). Some members of the legal fraternity have also given their support to the new regime. As a result, the judiciary is divided; so is civil society – traditionally two of the most progressive forces in society.

So what of the future?

I have reluctantly come to the view that perhaps the best thing we can hope for (work towards) is that the current regime (however illegitimate it is) succeeds. And by succeed I mean that it safely steers the nation back to democratic rule. I don’t believe that the Commander will step aside voluntarily and perhaps there are dangers if he does. I believe the alternative to this regime succeeding (ie that it fails) is the far worse option because it suggests – most likely – a fragmentation of the military and a violent power struggle erupting within the country.

I also believe that two of the core policies of the Bainimarama regime hold the key to our future development as a nation. One is the campaign against corruption – corruption that in turn has been fostered by the mismanagement and abuse of affirmative action programs over the years. The failure to deliver on the part of our leaders because of corruption continues to fuel discontent and frustration, especially among our more marginalized Fijian communities who have been led to expect much more.

The other policy is the communal based electoral system which – as we have seen – has encouraged racial polarization in elections and has caused politicians to employ racially divisive and nationalistic tactics. I don’t believe we will ever progress politically if we continue to tied to the communal voting system; I don’t think we will see truly national leaders (as opposed to parochial, ethnic leaders) emerge within the confines of the current communal system.

But for change to come about – whether it is to eliminate corruption or to remove communal voting – there has to be acceptance and understanding of the need for change. There has to be consensus.

To conclude, my view of the future is a mixed one. On the positive side, we have always managed to muddle through and to find a way out of the political mess left by a coup. Sometimes it has taken years and the toll has been high (in economic terms, in brain drain terms etc). But there is a resilience about Fiji that defies the most pessimistic prognoses. There have been some hard lessons learnt but there have been some positive outcome as well. For example, in the wake of the 1987 coups – in the decade that followed – Fiji witnessed a flourishing of civil society organizations; stepping into the gaps left by a political establishment weakened and tainted by the military coups of 1987. These have, for the most part, been a positive force in Fijian society. The fact that they appear weakened by the latest coup is a cause for concern but this does not spell the end for civil society activism.

On the negative side, the outlook for a coup-free future does not look very promising. If anything, the latest coup has virtually sealed our fate as coup prone society. It would take a huge leap of faith to believe that somehow the coup ‘solution’ will never again be contemplated by a future military commander, or even his junior officers. Other countries in our wider neighborhood that share a similar fate seem to be the Philippines and Thailand.

The means to carry out a coup will always be there (so long as we have a military). So what needs to change is the notion that carrying out a coup is somehow right and a justifiable political option. I guess it is apparent by now that I am no supporter of military coups – this latest one being no exception. I believe we need to break out of this cycle. The way to do that is to somehow change the mindset. As the latest coup revealed, support (whether tacit or explicit) for a military takeover of a democratically elected government is widespread. It is evident within sections of the western educated elite, the intelligentsia, the business community, the urban middle class, the NGO community. This reveals the enormity of the challenge facing our society. Until we as a society – and our leaders in particular – can categorically renounce and reject the use of force in our political life – democracy has little hope of becoming an entrenched force in our lives. And we will never realize our full potential as a country.

Thank you.