The latest moves by two members to seek legal redress, regarding their dismissal from the Great Council of Chiefs(GCC) has invariably opened up another chapter of political loggerheads.
On one hand, the affidavit filed by the two members sought to ascertain the authority of the Interim Fijian Affairs Minister, particularly in regards to the Minister's role in suspending the GCC members.
The other questionable premise of their affidavit as seen in the Fiji TV news segment, warned of friction between old and new members which could, according to their rationale, result in altercations between the new and old GCC members. This fictionalized antagonism, as so their reasoning goes could propel their people into violent confrontations with the Fiji military.
It appears that the very legal documents filed by the GCC duo, have suggested to a certain degree, an incitement of insurrection, between the Chieftains and the Military. To warn of impedding violence by proxy, is another perilous application of ethnonationalistic fear mongering.
The exceptional opinion article of an local academic published by the Fiji Times, provides volumes of plausible reasons in determining the calibre of democracy that should be applied to Fiji.
Perpetual "kerekere" will only entrench dependency on aid
Dr SURESH PRASAD
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Democracy: Which Model?
There seems to be a rather mystifying euphoria amongst the select few vocal pro-democracy individuals within the NGO circles in Fiji in direct proportion to the very blatant international 'arm twisting' and economic aid 'blackmailing' being applied to the Fiji's Interim Government to hold national elections sooner than later as a recognisable step towards return to democracy.
This is as if the next election would be a panacea and a hasty return of 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 restoration of the biased and divisive model of democracy that has sprouted corruption and racism to the benefit of a handful of individuals with their own disguised, but quite apparent to a multitude of observers, personal egotistical agenda behind the faade of 'Fijian interest'.
Perhaps those individuals and 'friendly' nations that are shouting the loudest for quick pathway to democracy need to pause and examine what is their understanding of democracy in Fiji given that Qarase and others had labelled it a 'foreign bird' quite some time ago.
Is it the same model that has entrenched racial divides and now is being brought back to further c perpetuate politics of race or perhaps this time around we will have a brand of democracy in which the 'big brother' nations have themselves progressed and thrived over the years.
It is ironical 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 yet not spouted their views on which model of democracy are they contemplating imposing on Fiji.
It is equally ironical, that the same self-styled bastions of democracy, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, while on one hand want quick restoration to this rather 'illusive' democracy but on the other hand have adopted an obstructionist positions, under the guise of 'smart sanctions', to block off the very public service and statutory appointments that will propel Fiji towards 'true' democracy in 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 now four decades ago.
We haven't it seems, learnt 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 aid tap on; not realising that this perpetual 'kere-kere' will forever entrench Fiji into the vicious cycle of foreign aid dependency and thus prevent them 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 going to be ones who once again will be inflicted with the pains of this rather 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 played out 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 fledgling nation in a kind of economic subservience to be exploited at whim by our rather 'suddenly' concerned neighbours?
Does this agenda include 'creative' and systematic destabilisation of Fiji to warrant foreign military intervention, perhaps by RAMSI, to bring back semblance of hypocritical civil order and to restore the much 'democracy'the Qarase brand!
A good example of this impetuous return to democracy 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 in a national legislative role.
Was the constitutional agenda then surreptitiously hijacked by a select few racists with corrupt parallel agendas of their own personal wealth 'creation' or was it done to appease the chiefs and further entrench the politics of race, once again, again suit their own egotistical racist- personal agendas?
There seems to be a symbiotic link between individual wealth creations in Fiji albeit by corrupt means, and politics of race.
We can now only speculate and contemplate on the reasoning's behind the hastiness with Fiji is being forced to embrace the previous model of divisive democracy at the insistence of other nations.
The elevation of 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, do not represent the other half of Fiji's population comprising significantly of Indo-Fijians and other minority races.
It is debatable 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 rank 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 for it to sail once again the 'treacherous' sea of democracy; particularly treacherous, if we allow our 'big brother nations' to have an unbridled control of the tiller!
That's the good 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 am contending 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 Suresh Prasad is a career academic, a versatile journalist, a talented broadcaster, an Accredited Mediator, Family Therapist, Trauma Counsellor and a keen Community Worker. He is currently engaged in 'community capacity building and regeneration' projects both in Australia and overseas.
Club Em Designs
No comments:
Post a Comment