A Beta-Democracy-Fiji's Great Awakening?

In a follow up to an earlier post, titled Old politics of Ethnicity In Fiji & & The Gauge of Democracy, it appears that a sense of change has now become a reality to most Taukei of the common stock; after a segment of chiefs publicly announced their boycott of the Interim Government's proposed meeting, as reported in a Fiji Times (FT) article.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Chiefs back boycott
By Sakiasi Nawaikama on Kadavu
Friday, November 28, 2008

THE Bose Vanua (provincial chiefs council) of Kadavu has agreed to support the call by the paramount chief of Burebasaga to boycott the Bose ni Turaga (traditional leaders meeting) convened for next month by the interim Government.

The stand by the Roko Tui Dreketi, Ro Teimumu Kepa, was conveyed to the Kadavu Provincial Council on Wednesday night.

Ro Teimumu said earlier the Bose ni Turaga was unlawful and only a Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) could be called. The Burebasaga Confederacy recognises the BLV as the lawful and legislated body.

Yesterday, Ro Teimumu declined to comment on Kadavu's support and her call for a boycott.

The Kadavu Bose Vanua was told People's Charter teams that visited were accepted in the traditional manner but were told they stood by the resolve of the province and wouldn't accept the charter.

The meeting was told by a chief 80 per cent accepted the charter and he had no choice but to follow the will of his people. Another chief suggested the province review its stance and support the charter in the hope for a better future.

Tui Tavuki Ratu Narokete Waqanivavalgi, told the meeting that contrary to popular belief promoted by the NCBBF, he did not accept the charter. He said they accommodated NCBBF and government reps and stressed the province did not support the charter. He told the Bose Vanua this was misconstrued when the team returned to Suva.

Former Bose Vanua chairman Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said on Wednesday the province should unite and support the Government through the charter process.

Bose Vanua chairman Ratu Varani Rayawa said he feared the charter would do more harm than good because it divided the province.

After this series of civil disobedience by the Chiefs, it would appear that a great democratic awakening has occurred among the indigenous populace, considering a recent letter to the editor by Koli Korovulavula, which was published by The Fiji Times.

The excerpt of FT Letter to the Editor:

Chiefs and democracy

There are provinces that will not support the interim Government. Some have gone so far as to forbid individuals from attending the Bose ni Turaga.

What will happen to the people who go anyway? Will these people be ostracised? Can the chiefs throw them out of their own land?

Legally, land is owned by mataqali, not by chiefs. But there is one even more intriguing question: Why is there a need for chiefs to meet about a return to democracy when their very existence goes against the ideals of democracy?

Do we want democracy and peace? Do we want economic progress?

Do we want chiefs, protocols, heritage, traditions, religion or eternity? Do we want multi-racialism, better land use, qoliqoli rights and total land rights?

Past governments tried to achieve co-existence for some or even all the above wants. But we have to start with needs first if we are to move anywhere.

I hope that one day any child of this nation, without fear of being ridiculed for a lack of blue blood, can lay a legitimate claim to our highest office through achievement, loyalty, dignity and merit.

Until then, the Fijian commoner remains a discriminated soul in his or her own land.

KOLI KOROVULAVULA
Nabua

In a Fiji Live article, which covered the Naitasiri Chief's demand for an apology; also contained comments from readers, who were profoundly against the chief's righteous indignation; while a few posters demanded their own apologies from the layer of chiefs who supported the 1987, 2000 coups and for the ripples of problems emanating from those events.

Excerpts of comments from the Fiji Live article:

Posted Comments
Posted By: david1005143 Posted On: Dec 02 2008
22:11:41
Comment: I think the chiefs should apologise to the people of Fiji for losing focus, sense of direction, corruption, and being counter productive. The monarchy has changed in England, how about you guys?

Posted By: brij Posted On: Dec 03 2008 00:18:40
Comment: People who want to invest in Fiji think twice when chiefs get involved in politics and government. Please let the commander do his job.

Posted By: Ula Nejad Posted On: Dec 03 2008 11:29:41
Comment: I agree that chiefs should apologise to the citizens of Fiji for their lack of integrity. Frank should let the chiefs know that he will explain himself at the meeting. That is as a military man he will stand by his regime as a native son of Fiji he will look to his excellency the President and chief to apologise to the people and chiefs alike when the time is appropriate. Nothing the chiefs can say now will have any effect. It seems they have lost their mana. They have to modernise the chiefly system if they have to stay alive. End of story.

Posted By: rommel Posted On: Dec 03 2008 01:12:00
Comment: This chief has the lunacy to lead their people, who continue to follow the trail of tears; which have left them disenfranchised and perpetually enslaved in poverty. It is without a doubt that most high chiefs (who attempt to keep their relevance in the socio-political arena without the mandate of the multi-racial society) are outdated in this era of high speed internet and 3G cell phones.
If they continue to demand respect without reciprocity, this will be the opening circle of their death spiral. The modern Taukei will move on with the times and will embrace change in technology, social progress and governance; with or without these chiefs. Lead, follow or just get out of the way.

Posted By: Temo Posted On: Dec 03 2008 01:49:54
Comment: Apologise for what? How about the chiefs apologising for the 1987 and 2000 coups ... hypocrisy!

Posted By: Ratu Kulati Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:21:49
Comment: The days of our chiefly system are over. Would someone please wake up some of our stone aged chiefs from their deep slumber? Ratu Inoke, please join in the discussion or be left behind. It makes no difference to Bainimarama. He will achieve his objective with or without you.

Posted By: Jone Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:25:06
Comment: Can we move the country forward without some of our disgruntled chiefs? I'm generally thinking what have they contributed to our country? Some have really been good role models to our nation/community. To the honourable chiefs, we as a country needs to move forward. We must make a choice in this 21st century we are living in, and I propose that the traditional chiefly system needs to be reviewed and probably reformed by the IG if they are to be part of the future arm of government. What would be the acceptable role of tradition in modern society?

Posted By: kradoak Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:32:18
Comment: Fijian chiefs need to choose between democracy and the traditional Fijian autocracy. They cannot have both. Bainimarama does not owe an apology to the chiefs. It is the chiefs who owe apologies to the citizens of Fiji for letting them down.

Another interesting take on Fiji's politics was published in a blog from East-West center forum.

The excerpt:

The politics of constitutionalism in Fiji
Author: Scott MacWilliam

While much attention focuses on the legal principles involved in the 2008 High Court decision in Fiji, less public notice is directed at the 1997 Constitution and some of the laws which have flowed from this document. Lawyers in particular have a long history of regarding upholding the rule of law as an almost sacred principle, regardless of whether a law or Constitution is meritorious by other principles, such as whether the law is just or the Constitution democratic.

Nor are those who defend the rule of law always aware that for others, legalism can form the basis for a political strategy in support of unjust and/or undemocratic laws. This strategy is currently being pressed by the former government and its supporters, in Fiji and overseas. People who are anxious to resolve the current impasse in Fiji need to be wary of lending support to a Constitution and associated laws which do not form the basis for a just or democratic settlement.

In the case of the 1997 Fiji Constitution, there is sound reason for arguing that it is undemocratic and that the laws which follow from the Constitution should be subject to more scrutiny and less respect than it and they are sometimes given. The outcome of the Constitution-making process, whatever the intentions of the people who formulated the initial document, is a decidedly undemocratic framework for a modern society such as Fiji.

The basis of this conclusion rests on the following points:

a) Contrary to claims that the Constitution received widespread popular support in Fiji before being adopted, it did not. Little more than ruling elite opinion was ever sought by the Constitution drafters and the final document was a compromise among the parliamentary representatives of this elite.

b) Under the Constitution, the President is not an elected office-bearer but appointed.

c) The Great Council of Chiefs, which at best only claims to represent one part of the national population (ethnic Fijians), is not elected yet wields inordinate power, including in the appointment of the President. The widely-held view, including among many of those whom the GCC purports to represent, is that much of the membership of this body is less than august: one popular description of the GCC is `Great Council of Thieves’.

d) The Senate, or upper house of the Parliament, is not directly elected, but again appointed, consisting mainly of party loyalists chosen with little or no attempt made to gauge if they have any substantial popular support.

e) The lower House of Parliament, where the Government is formed, is elected on an electoral system which is grossly malapportioned toward the rural areas. A vote in some seats is worth many times what a vote is worth in others. That is, whether formed by an ethnic-Fijian led party or an Indo-Fijian led party, the government does not necessarily represent the views of the majority of the people as a result of holding the majority of seats from electorates which conform to anything near the one-vote one-value democratic principle. Fiji general elections are even worse in this respect than Australian Federal elections were until the 1974 reform in this country.

In short, defenders of the 1997 Constitution and laws which flow from it are arguing that a democracy which would not be acceptable to constitutionalists in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere should be upheld in Fiji. There is more than a slight degree of hypocrisy involved when it is suggested by implication that such `thin’ democracy is good enough for Fijians.

Instead of resorting to legalism as the basis for assessing the High Court decision, a political evaluation is required. The 1997 Constitution must be democratised, to move Fiji beyond being the thinnest of thin democracies Yet neither the ousted Laisenia Qarase-led government nor one led by any other party or party coalition elected on the existing electoral boundaries can be trusted to make the necessary reforms. While the capacity for reform may not lie with the military either, for the moment they hold the most important power and must be negotiated with, not treated as pariahs. It is to be hoped that political change in Australia and New Zealand will stimulate negotiations devoid of the moralistic and patronising preaching which has characterised much of both governments’ positions so far.

How soon political advance along these lines will occur depends to a certain extent, however, on whether the lawyers and some politicians have their way and the High Court decision is appealed. If this is done, it is highly likely that the military government in Fiji will become more and more intractable. It is to be hoped that instead of listening to the devotees of the rule of law principle, that the Australian, New Zealand and other governments recognise what is the central political as well as legal dilemma. How to reform a constitution by unconstitutional, deeply political means is the task which lies in front of all the parties.

Zemanta Pixie" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d867764b-3bfc-4b12-b90b-e266122c8bae">

Social Bookmarking

The Lady Is A Tramp.

Fiji Times article quotes from the Rewa Paramount Chief, who was part of a church delegation visiting the Chair of the People's Charter, Archbishop Petero Mataca. The excerpt of the Fiji Times article:

Sorry: Ro Teimumu

Friday, October 26, 2007

REWA high chief Ro Teimumu Kepa has admitted to being a part of the delegation of concerned Catholic church members who visited Archbishop Petero Mataca.

The visit was to ask Archbishop Mataca to step down as the co-chair of the National Council on Building a Better Fiji. Ro Teimumu had earlier denied being part of the delegation that visited Archbishop Mataca.

"Yes, I was a part of the delegation but I did not want to say anything at first because I did not want to make it a public issue," she said.

"But now that the Archbishop has made a statement with regards to the meeting and the issue that was discussed, I felt it was time for me to say that I was a part of the delegation. "I really want to apologise for denying my presence at the meeting to the reporter who had called me and asked me about it."

Ro Teimumu, Ratu Suliano Matanitobua and Kenneth Zinck visited Archbishop Mataca. When asked if there was a possibility of a split in the Catholic church after the decision by the Archbishop, Ro Teimumu did not directly say there was a split but admitted there were a lot of people with strong feelings about the Archbishop's decision.

Raiwaqa parish priest Father Kieran Maloney said he strongly disagreed with Archbishop Mataca's decision to co-chair the National Council. He said the acceptance was disgusting but not surprising.

"We really want to urge people to continue to attend church because it is for the people too and not only for the Archbishop.

"The church is for us and we should continue to go to church and pray for the church and its leadership," said Ro Teimumu.

The failed defamation campaign against Archbishop Mataca, has forced those in the shadows to drag out the indigenous rights issue, in a feeble attempt to rekindle the flames of dissatisfaction in the minds of the ignorant. Their spin doctoring poorly and speculatively paints the People's Charter as a clear and present danger to the indigenous Fijian race. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fiji Times article covers the opinion of the Aristocrats in the Rewa province. This comes in the wake of another Fiji Times article quoting from representatives from Somosomo Taveuni warning the teams for the People's Charter stating that, the village was off limits.

The excerpt:

Somosomo bans People's Charter teams

1635 FJT
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Update: 4.35pm THE chiefly clan of Lalagavesi, Somosomo will not allow any teams conducting awareness programs on the People's Charter into Somosomo.

Traditional spokesman Epeli Matata said the teams may visit other villages on Taveuni but the chiefly village of Somosomo would be out of bounds for them.

The military has been holding awareness programs on the People's Charter.

Charter anti-Fijian: Rewa

Friday, November 09, 2007

REWA, one of Fiji's three largest provinces, yesterday rejected the proposed People's Charter on Building a Better Fiji largely because it disagreed with efforts to ignore the existence of indigenous Fijians.

Ro Dona Takalaiyale, the leader of the Sauturaga clan and spokesman of the Rewa Bose Vanua, issued Rewa's position in a statement yesterday. Ro Dona described the charter as "a creation of non-racial Fiji and written by two foreigners without input from Fijians or their elected representatives".

Ro Dona also voiced concerns about the interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama's public statements about his desire to abolish all communal seats through the People's Charter.

"Also Lt-Col Mataitoga's statement that Affirmative Action will be abolished under the charter. Also the charter is inconsistent with the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People's Article 3-5 where indigenous people are entitled to participate in the political life of the state. "It is inconsistent with the 1997 Constitution where race is recognised as an integral element of the nation of Fiji," he said.

Ro Dona said the Bose Vanua also resolved to boycott any referendum or election that will be influenced by the Charter.

Commenting on the review of the Great Council of Chiefs, Ro Dona said the vanua remained steadfast in its support of the suspended GCC's stand that the interim Government was illegal and that its actions including the review of the GCC were illegal and unconstitutional.

"The Bose Vanua resolves that it will not accept the outcomes of the review of the GCC by the interim Government-appointed committee and that it would not participate in any reconstituted GCC arising out of the recommendations of the committee," he said.

Earlier this month, Ro Filipe Tuisawau, the nephew of Rewa paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa, warned the indigenous population to be wary of the People's Charter because it would not allow for indigenous issues to be raised in Parliament.

He said this would greatly affect the indigenous people.

It appears that the Fijian aristocracy have launched another mis-information campaign; to shore up support for their version of social slavery. While calling for Fiji's rapid return to democracy- a farcical suggestion because all right thinking people understand that, Chief's involvement in Democracy is an oxymoron.

It is also amusing to read the concerns about indigenous rights being undermined by the People's Charter; as if the aristocracy had been given a monopoly to exclusively comment of matters pertaining to all indigenous issues. It was this monopoly that reared its ugly head in Fiji post 2000 coup, when the Paramount chief of Rewa, Ro Teimumu Kepa paid a social call with George Speight and the Rebels holed up in Fiji Parliament; while dismissing any notion to visit hostages, who were still held in nearby meeting rooms within the Parliamentry complex. It was this monopoly of Fijian chiefs that indirectly formented the riots in downtown Suva both in 1987 and 2000.





Ro Dona described the charter as "a creation of non-racial Fiji and written by two foreigners without input from Fijians or their elected representatives". Ro Dona raises the issue of the 1997 Constitution and selectively omits that that document was written and compiled by two foreigners as well. It is also the high water mark of hypocrisy, not to question the formation of the Great Council of Chiefs, an aristocratic entity imported by the British. Of course, anything foreign that does not erode the cultural exuberance of the Chiefs is kept on a pedestal; while anything progressive and visionary like the People's Charter is denounced, ridiculed and disdained by the same layer of despots.




Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs