Moving Forward Like A Crab.

Two exceptional letters were published by the Fiji Sun "Letters to the Editor" column. The following are excerpts:

Justice
Last updated 10/22/2007 8:56:18 AM

I can't really disagree with Mick Beddoes contention that justice delayed in justice denied. An argument he raises in accusing, rightly or wrongly, the Fiji Human Rights Commission for not doing anything for the victims of the 2006 coup. He of course assumes that these people who he is advocating for have been denied justice and that it was indeed the commission that denied or deliberately delayed it for reasons that have not been disclosed by Beddoes. Of recent Beddoes has been commenting rather negatively on all matters pertaining to the governance of Fiji by the Interim Government.

I wish he had shown the same level of enthusiasm in criticising the governance of this country when Qarase and his cronies were rather blatantly engaging in corruption and racism. I wish he had shown the same courage in raising issues, in the relative immunity of the Parliament, in exposing corrupt practices of the Qarase government. I wish he had shown the same due diligence, that he seems to rather hypocritically show now, when the nation's coffers were be pillaged and scarce national resources and assets exploited for personal gain by Qarase and his gang of rogues.

I am equally flabbergasted why Beddoes has never raised matters of justice that were so blatantly denied to other victims of the 19987 and 2000 coups. Many lost all they had toiled for in Fiji and in fear of further persecution and in complete absence any one raising a voice for them, they left the shores of Fiji for good to live abroad, in what for many them is tantamount to 'self imposed exile'.

Where was Beddoes then? What has he done about these thousands who were so blatantly denied justice? Or does Beddoes like other self proclaimed leaders of human rights who have mushroomed so suddenly in Fiji is only an advocate on a selective basis?
Beddoes would be well advised to be equally selective about when he should open his mouth. For Beddoes it might be prudent to remain silent, for as soon as he opens his mouth the world will know how hollow and biased his human rights rhetoric is.

The following letters was in response to the SDL stalwart, Mere Samisoni's perception of the proposed People's Charter:

Move forward

We hear much these days from the interim regime on the need to "move the country forward".

But if that is really such an over-riding concern, then surely the question needs to be asked as to why the military leadership found it so unavoidably necessary to "move the country backward" in December 2006.

The SDL-led Multi-Party Cabinet (MPC) had already set itself about the task of bringing the kind of desirable changes suitable for the 21st century information civilisation.

This was well documented in the Strategic Development Plans (SDP) 2006, rolled over to 2007-2011, which incorporated much of the legitimate manifestoes of the two major parties in the MPC.

That means that a workable and legitimate system was already in place to "move the country forward" pre-coup. Whats more, it was based on market metrics, implemented through the rule of law, and achieved through the democratic process as representative of a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious society.

This represents a far more legitimate and sustainable foundation for "moving the country forward" and "bringing the races together" than what the IG is trying to shove down peoples throats.

Despite this, the Military Council (MC) supported by the Fiji Labour Party (FLP), and other opportunists in the IG (MC/FLP/IG) still saw it fit to impose an illegal coup that violated those democratic and administrative processes already in place under the 1997 Constitution.

And now, the illegitimate regime is simply trying to achieve the same goals as the ousted Government, but from a far less popular and legitimate policy foundation framework, and with dictatorial style of leadership that is far less effective and popular.

Moreover, we now have the anomaly of the Peoples Charter (PI) with its Council of decision makers that renders the IG essentially redundant.

What is of concern, is the idea that the PI or what I call the Military Charter did not come from the people, it was not written by the people, there is no ownership by the people and it serves no obvious purpose for the people. That means the idea of a Military Charter is fundamentally disconnected from reality and peoples daily lives.

Moreover, the Military Charter and its dictatorial and impositional management style are incompatible with the new economic order of win-win relationships based on community human values.

Therefore, in the bigger picture, the MC is doomed from the start.

Also, at a global level, the latest trend in strategic business planning is to differentiate and segment markets along group demographics and psychographics so as to achieve better market servicing.

This marketing "best practice" is certainly transferable to the work of Government, where it can help to tailor and target policies according to specific and measurable demographic needs, values and aspirations, where these differ. Despite this, the MC/FLP/IG is still moving toward the complete opposite philosophy by embracing an obsolete 'one size fit all vision.

This just sweeps everything under the mat, including diversity of human and community values and choices, by preferring instead to manage things via an "out of sight and out of mind" approach.

How is the MC going to measure motivation, performance and success of target groups without differentiating its policy "market" for felt needs, values and special aspirations?

Mere Tuisalalo Samisoni
Lami

Apparently, the talking points issued by the SDL Headquarters was to resist and desist the People's Charter proposed by the Interim Government. Obviously, SDL's idea of movement for the nation of Fiji is akin to a crab's motion: side to side but never forward.

Back to the future
Last updated 10/22/2007 8:55:45 AM

We have heard of the saying that one becomes wiser after the event. However, Mere Samisoni's academically garbled theory and analysis of the Military Council's action and the people's charter shows that some people lose all sense of reasoning and logic if they are removed from their cushioned positions.
Being a post graduate student myself, I could not comprehend her far- fetched theories, so I feel sorry for the common Tomasi, Deepak and Hamid on Suva streets who would be scratching their heads and wondering what group demographics and psychographics mean.

She talks about transferring the latest trend in strategic business planning on differentiating and segmenting markets along group demographics and psychographics to government to achieve better market servicing, whatever that means.
She also spoke about tailoring and targeting policies according to specific and measurable demographic needs, values and aspirations, where these differ.

It is a pity she did not give this lecture to SDL caucus, and especially the chiefly minister and aunty- in- law of two existing interim Minister when she was the Education Minister. Assuming if they could understand what was lectured to them; one would assume that the country could have been saved from the doomsday that supposedly 5 December, 2006 spelt. Was this not the policy of one size fits all that she is accusing the Military Council of having now?

Qarase's blanket racist policies, based solely on race rather than needs dictated that a rich Fijian parent with a combined income of $200,000 could have free Form Seven education for their child while an evicted Indo Fijian with an income of only 2per cent of the Fijian parent still had to pay full fees under Qarase's racist policies. Where then was this bright academic who is acting holier then thought and preaching theories that common mortals like me, and many others, cannot comprehend?

Bread is a basic staple food that people would eat despite the falling economic situation of the country. Perhaps that is why Mere Samisoni could not have her finger on the pulse of Fiji's economy that was sliding down to bankruptcy. Just a basic example is sugar mills. People who could hardly maintain their vehicles and repair falling mufflers were made to run multi- million gadgets which never had preventative maintenance and capital input on a progressive scale.

No wonder, like a wrecked car in the heart of Suva City, the sugar mills are being rendered to scraps by an incompetent regime. Where were then these market servicing theories of the gold medalist graduate of SDL party?
You need not be a rocket scientist to see what was wrong with Fiji's sick economy which was exaggerated by equally sick racist policies that went against all the grains of academia.

I wonder where then were the arm chair critics and MBA graduates, masquerading as coup victims and professors from academic institutions, now coming out of woodwork and pontificating on the state of economy that a common cane cutter already knows.
Now that Australia and New Zealand has twisted Fiji's arm for another election, who will give a guarantee that this election will stick? Who says that elections are a panacea to Fiji's problems?

But my concern is, how democracy can save Fiji from a racially divisive party like SDL and how the country can be saved from academics who say so much without telling anything.

Fiji Times also published another letter responding to the Ex-Officio from Lami Open, Mere Samisoni.

Racist policies

I think I must be a masochist but I forced myself to read Mere (I will use 10 words when one will do) Samisoni's letter, of 19th October, 10 times to understand what she was saying.

In brief, the first part basically said the SDL led multi-party Cabinet was doing a fantastic job moving the country forward and the there was no need for the military takeover.

The second part was that the People's Charter was doomed for failure.

The third part interestingly says modern governments should use targeted marketing to give the different sectors of the community what they need. We have seen examples of this from the SDL. The Qoliqoli Bill: very targeted towards the indigenous community

The reconciliation Bill; again very targeted towards the indigenous community; not many Indians were going to be released from prison due to that? The list of such targeted policies is endless.

We also had the agricultural scam: you may think that only benefited the indigenous, SDL voting, rural poor. But, hold on a few rich shop owning Indians allegedly did very well. So that's okay. That was multiracial.

When you use market segmentation as a government and only put forward policies that benefit just one segment of a community and forget about the rest, then that is called a racist government. That sort of government has no place in the 21st Century.

So Mere, you have answered you own question. The Interim Government is definitely moving the country forward because amongst other things, they are trying to end racism in Fiji.

Mere Erasito
Brisbane

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The Coalition of Client States.

Given that the subject of Fiji's democracy has been deliberated by the Pacific Forum recently, the final abattoir of that transition lies with the Interim Government.

Despite the veiled threats reported by Newstalk article, made by NZ Foreign Minister while pushing Fiji to comply with the Pacific Forum's communique; the question of the road map and its accelerated time-tables (proposed by Fiji's neighbors) was also addressed and dismissed by an opinion article written by the Archbishop of Fiji, Petero Mataca.

This is the excerpt:

Now is the time for charting a gracious new Fiji

PETERO MATACA
Saturday, March 17, 2007


There is a story that I would like to begin this reflection with. A minister of the United Church of Canada, who ran a drop-in centre for homeless people in downtown Toronto, Canada, had planned to raise enough money to keep the centre running.

His dilemma was how could he raise the money he needed to do that? He later shared his problem, not intentionally though, with one of the regulars to the drop-in centre.

As the minister recalled, to his amazement and humility, the homeless man emptied his pockets of all sorts of rubbish until he found and gave his only dollar coin to start off the fundraising.

I am sure we could recall many such instances in our own experiences.

In the story about the widow's offering (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), Jesus made the observation that the woman, with the little she had, gave everything while those who have and could have given more, only gave from the surplus of their riches.

By Jewish law, each person is required to give and in that respect, by law, the wealthy people did their religious duty.

But the main point of the story is not about the rich and the poor, although it is a theme. Rather, it is about recognising that giving and sharing what one has is a necessary part of our human dignity.

The giving of the rich people in the story is nothing more than a legal requirement and means little to their dignity, whereas, the widow's giving means much more to her dignity as a human being. There is a detail in the Jewish law that specifies that even a person dependent on charity must give charity.

On the face of it, the rule is absurd. Why give enough money to one poor person so that he or she can give to another poor person?

It would be much more logical and efficient if the money is given directly to the second poor person.

But, the Jewish Rabbis, by making this law, understood correctly, in my view, that giving is an essential part of our human dignity.

The insistence that we provide the poor and the needy with enough money so that they themselves can give is a profound insight into the human condition we are not only capable of being greedy and selfish, which we must always guard against, but equally capable of giving, sharing and caring for one another.

In this Lenten season, I invite all Catholic priests, religious, lay people and women and men of good will to reflect upon this theme. Whatever one wishes to sacrifice or wishes to do better during this season of Lent, these resolutions must and need to be done with a spirit of giving and sharing.

When we give up or share what is most precious to us, our experiences become meaningful and beneficial to ourselves and to those we live with and to our respective communities.

When we wish to do better in some things that we had neglected in the past, and which requires the sacrifice of our time and energy to other non-essential things, our experience will mean something to us and those whom we love and care about.

Giving and sharing is an essential part of our dignity as human beings.

To give and to share is to go beyond the care of the self-centred self. This is the message that I wish to share with all Catholic priests, religious and lay people and women and men of good will in this Lenten season.

Furthermore, in the spirit of sharing and giving, I wish to offer the following reflections on some of our important national issues.

The poor must be looked after. As the above stories show, the poor and the needy among us are the ones who can teach us about giving and sharing.

In my New Year message, I designated, after consultation, that this year is a "year of solidarity with the disadvantaged, the poor and the stranger" for the Archdiocese.

We repeatedly read and heard from our local leaders that the poor are the most affected by the coup's impact on the economy.

Unfortunately, as in such cases, it is true, and in this regard, we must stand in solidarity with them.

But we must stand in solidarity with them as they are the key to our moving forward. How is this possible?

This is because knowing what they know about living in poverty, their demand on the rest of us to move forward and find ways to cushion the impacts has a far greater moral claim on our resources.

I challenge us all civil society, business organisations, religious and cultural institutions to find ways of highlighting the demand of the poor for the nation to move forward and find creative ways of helping each other.

Not to be in solidarity with the call of the poor to move forward creatively would be to invite consequences that our fragile social fabric may not be able to hold.

Resolution of legal issues

There is a need to seek clarity and closure on some of our significant outstanding constitutional and legal issues. Some of these concern the suspension of the Chief Justice and the subsequent appointment of an Acting Chief Justice, the independence of the judiciary, and the ousting of the Qarase-led Government.

The resolution of these constitutional and legal matters is crucial to rebuilding our sense of respect for and confidence in the rule of law and public order, and in the Constitution and its central place in our public life. The church, therefore, calls on the Interim Government to ensure that these legal concerns are independently and transparently acted upon.

Respect for human life

Respect for human life is a deeply rooted value in all our religious and cultural traditions. Two lives were lost, allegedly, as a result of military beatings during their time in detention. Again, I wish to reiterate the absoluteness of this principle. If we allow the two to become three and more, we will be in danger of reducing the value of human life from being absolute to relative and when that happens, everything of real value and essential to our living together, such as tolerance and respect, are in danger of being lost as well. In this regard, the church wishes to again remind the military and those in leadership positions to do everything possible to prevent a third loss of life during their tenure in power.

Heed the need for justice

Following from the above, I urge those who are responsible for the administration of justice to deal with the allegations surrounding the deaths of the two men while in custody or as a result of the alleged beatings while in detention. This is to be done truthfully and credibly. Forgiveness will not be possible until the truth is told about these events. The families and relatives of these men will not be fully free to move forward with their lives without having a sense that justice has been done to absolve them of their anger and hatred.

Therefore, the church urges the Interim Government to properly investigate the allegations made and bring to trial those who perpetrated these crimes.

Foreign interventions

At least, in Fiji, most of us know that the coup was illegal and that the Interim Government didn't have our consent to rule.

At least by now, all of us in Fiji know that there is a "road map" to general elections, and, while we may differ on the timeframe, at least, we know that until then, we will do whatever we can to hold the Interim Regime accountable to the fundamental principles of human decency.

The incessant and condescending calls for Fiji to hold general elections within a year or two from the governments of New Zealand, Australia and, lately, the US, from the point of view of convention, is understandable but shallow and lacking proper contextual assessment.

I say this for two good reasons. Firstly, as Andrew Murray (2007:3), a political scientist at the Catholic Institute in Sydney recently observed, "In a country, where local communities are run by chiefs, a less democratic form of government is not as troubling as it would be elsewhere" at least while we rectify and strengthen our democratic institutions and processes.

Secondly, we have had more than 30 years of democratic experience, and imposing overnight democracy in the form of holding general elections within a year after coups is a fundamental lesson that we must not repeat this time.

At least three years is time enough to rectify and put in place meaningful democratic processes.

Perhaps Fiji should begin writing on the sand while the governments of New Zealand, Australia and the US decide among themselves who is to throw the first stone.

I wish to end this reflection by repeating something that I had shared some time ago. To those of us who believe that our situation is essentially tragic simply because some supposedly foreign experts and western governments say so, the Fiji condition will show itself as a series of tragedies.

To those who believe that we can rewrite the script of our democratic history in order to ensure a genuine democratic future, history will reveal itself as a series of slow, faltering but compassionate steps to a more gracious nation. I call upon all people of goodwill to give and share with each other the resources that each one lacks.

I call upon all Catholics to strengthen your networks of helping the poor and the needy in your parishes and communities.

I request that we stand in solidarity with the call of the poor for us to work and move forward together by sharing what we have with each other and highlighting their call in our parishes and communities.

God bless.

Archbishop Petero Mataca is head of the Catholic Church in Fiji

The subject of Fiji's electoral system is in the lime-light, prompting an objective and informative opinion article by a local member of Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF).

This is the excerpt.

Avoiding further disasters with a new electoral system

Father DAVID ARMS
Saturday, March 17, 2007

IN the much talked about need for a "roadmap" back to democracy, the endpoint seems to be the holding of elections under the requirements of the 1997 Constitution (namely the Alternative Vote, a certain ratio of Communal and Open seats, etc).

Elections completed, Fiji is "back to democracy" and all is well again with the outside world.

With the outside world, perhaps. But not within Fiji itself.

It is simplistic to equate democracy with elections. Deep consideration needs to be given to what sort of democracy we want after any elections. For true democracy, elections need to genuinely reflect the people's view. None of the three elections held so far under Fiji's current voting system have done this.

The people's views have been greatly distorted, resulting in insufficiently representative parliaments. The present electoral system is itself the cause of many of Fiji's democratic woes.

Electoral experts agree that the former First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system would not have served Fiji much better than the Alternative Vote (AV). They would also agree, on the whole, that what Fiji needs is a form of Proportional Representation (PR).

I do not intend to present again here the many unjust results brought about by the AV system, nor the various arguments for PR.

What I wish to emphasise is that the time to make the change to PR is now. To plan electoral reform now for application after the next elections is most unsatisfactory. Fiji needs a truly representative parliament if it is to establish a more viable democracy and extricate itself from the coup culture. This in turn requires an immediate change of electoral system to PR.

Only after holding elections under a suitable new system does Fiji reach "democracy".

An immediate objection that will be raised is that AV and certain other requirements are mandated in the 1997 Constitution, so to change the electoral system now means contravening that Constitution. But the question must be asked: do we want genuine democracy, or don't we?

It may well be true that by having a coup, Fiji has simply jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. But it is no solution to suggest that Fiji now jumps out of the fire, back into the frying pan! We need to jump clear of both to employ new, just arrangements. The unfair AV system and the bipolar ethnically-based political scenarios it generated are not something that Fiji wants to relive. The AV system has not just been controversial in the Fiji context; it has been disastrous.

In the 1999 election we had the great unfairness that, although the FLP-led coalition had only one and a third times the first preferences of the SVT-led coalition, the AV system gave them more than five times as many seats. Such a wildly unjust result set the stage for the coup of 2000.

While many court cases have (rightly) been brought against the culprits, not at all enough blame has been attached to the AV system itself, which without any shadow of doubt contributed in a major way to the coup and all that has happened since.

In the 2001 election the AV system, which according to the Reeves Commission was supposed to encourage moderation, managed to reduce the so-called 'moderates' to the barest handful. In fact it can be cogently argued that, as well as wiping out the middle and setting up two major ethnically-based parties at loggerheads, it even managed to hand victory to the wrong party! Certainly by Fiji's former FPP system or by a PR system, the FLP would have been the major party and would probably have been able to form the government. As it was, the manipulation of people's choices provided by the above-the-line voting in AV, worked against the FLP this time (whereas it had worked for them in 1999).

In the 2006 election we again had results that were most undesirable, and a complete contradiction of what the Reeves Commission had wanted the AV system to achieve. Instead of encouraging multi-ethnic parties and inter-ethnic cooperation, the AV system provided us with the situation where all ethnic Fijian Communal seats and all Open seats with a clear ethnic Fijian majority were won by one party (the SDL), all Indo-Fijian Communal seats and all Opens seats with a clear Indo-Fijian majority were won by another party (the FLP), all General seats bar one (that of Robin Irwin) were won by another party (the UPP), and the single Rotuman seat was won by a different party again (an Independent, in fact).

Apart from Robin Irwin's and the Rotuman seat, the only seats where there was any real contest were the few Open seats where the ethnic ratio between ethnic Fijians and Indo-Fijians was quite close. For by far the greater number of seats the outcome was predictable, and the exercise of voting for thousands of voters was a rather meaningless formality. That is hardly the way voting should be.

With this evidence from the three past elections confronting us, is it not madness to suggest we go back and have elections again under the AV system?

The voting system is supposed to provide us with a House of Representatives, yet it is clear that major segments of our society have not had fair representation at all. The most outrageous case is surely that of the NFP, who held almost a third of the Indo-Fijian vote in 1999, a quarter in 2001, a seventh in 2006, but received no representation in any of the three elections.

Even in 2006 when they did least well, they held over 49,000 first preferences. They nevertheless got no seats even though the UPP party, with well under 7,000 first preferences, picked up two!

Surely in a country that prides itself on its concern for all groups, this sort of nonsense cannot be allowed to continue not even once more.

A further reason for changing the electoral system immediately is that, if such reform were to be implemented only after the next general election held under AV, there would be a huge waste of resources, which Fiji cannot afford. Modifications would have to be made to the AV system, new constituency boundaries drawn up, and comprehensive voter education programs undertaken. Yet all this work would have to be repeated if a new electoral system were to be used later rather than immediately.

Sufficient time, of course, must be given to prepare for a new electoral system. But it should still be possible to have it in place by 2010. It did not take very long to get the AV system into place (proposed by the Reeves Commission in 1996, used in the elections of 1999).

What needs to happen is for the Interim Government to call together the various political groupings for a meeting to change the electoral system.

This time of uncertainty, when the political allegiances of the people are less predictable, is quite a good time to propose a change to PR. PR gives to each party the percentage of seats corresponding to its percentage of voter support.

When parties are unsure of their ground, that is the time when they are most likely to support PR, as they realise it is eminently fair, and will ensure that everybody, including themselves, gets fair representation. They prefer to get less than they might, rather than risk missing out altogether.

It is only when some parties become clearly the major power blocks that they may try to steer away from PR, realising that certain other voting systems (such as AV) will exaggerate their dominance, eviscerating rivals or eliminating them altogether.

If the political groupings can agree on a change to a better voting system, we are in a good position to move forward and adopt it immediately. If they cannot agree, then there would need to be analysis of the areas of disagreement and the reasons for it.

If the matters are minor (for example, the details of the PR system to be used) or if only one party disagrees or seems bent on being a 'spoiler', the Interim Government may nevertheless be able to proceed. If, however, the disagreements are more substantial, it would need to be more circumspect.

But what needs to be done, needs to be done! We are faced by a 'doctrine of necessity' type situation. A change of electoral system is urgently needed. If the constitutional path is followed, the delay in making the change is too long, plus the fact that those with the power to make the change may very well not do so (from self-interest).

One of the big problems in changing the electoral system in any democracy is that the people empowered to change it are the very people who have just been elected by it. They usually have a vested interest in leaving the electoral system much as it is. It is important, therefore, to change the electoral system while Fiji is in the process of re-setting its course.

Undoubtedly, the coup of 2006 and its aftermath are highly controversial. The legalities (and clear illegalities) of a lot of what has taken place will be long discussed, analysed, and litigated.

But life must go on. We must deal with Fiji as it is, not as we might like it to be. If a referendum was held on some matter of national importance, would it be regarded as invalid merely because it took place during the reign of an illegal regime? Surely not. Provided it was conducted fairly, such a referendum would be accepted as a valid expression of the people's will. I am not, however, suggesting a referendum regarding the electoral system. The issues are too detailed and unfamiliar to the public to do that at this stage. If, however, a good cross-section of political interests could agree on changing the electoral system to one clearly more appropriate, why should this be treated much differently to a referendum? Surely in the crisis situation Fiji finds itself in, a certain flexibility is required.

There may not be much opposition to such a change even from outside countries. Foreigners with any understanding of Fiji at all, know that our AV voting system has not been successful. The European Union Electoral Observation Mission forthrightly questioned whether AV was suitable for Fiji. Off the record, a number of them spoke even more strongly, and recommended a PR system. Fiji has been criticised for some time over its high proportion of Communal seats, with recommendations that they be reduced over time to be ultimately done away with.

If, then, there is agreement that PR is fairer and more suitable to Fiji; and if Communal seats are done away with (the interests of ethnic communities being well enough protected by PR itself), opponents will look rather silly if they continue to claim that AV must be used because it is in the Constitution.

The Constitution was made for Fiji, not Fiji for the Constitution.

Although Fiji is still some time away from the elections proposed for 2010, suggestions, discussions and decisions towards adopting a form of PR need to be made, so that the necessary ground work for a change to PR (the particular form of PR, different electoral boundaries, training of electoral officials, voter education, etc.) can be completed by the 2010 deadline. The time to start work on this is now.

Father David Arms is a member of the Citizens Constitutional Forum. The opinions expressed here, however, are his own and not those of the CCF.

Club Em Designs

Gauging Fiji's Democracy.

The article by Stuff highlights the unhealthy obsession displayed by the Trans-Tasman rivals on the issue of Fiji's democracy. This artificial induced diplomatic pressure on Fiji, is spearheaded by the most quintessential abuser of democracy; none other than the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer.

Opinion article by a Fiji academic was published in Monday 26th February issue of the Fiji Sun. The opinion is informative and provides an accurate counter-point on the mechanics of democracy in Fiji and the structural elements supporting it.

Economic recovery vs democracy

By Dr Suresh Prasad

Fiji should develop a workable road map towards economic recovery and national capacity building and in the interim, the people crying for democracy should take a back seat. Once the nation has recovered economically, democracy will fall into place.

After all, several people, including self-styled merchant banker and deposed prime minister Laisenia Qarase have spoken about democracy being an alien '`bird'', clearly denoting that other, more important matters needed to be attended to before we could all bask in the glory of being a democratic nation.

Let's not pre-occupy ourselves with this illusionary ‘`bird’, democracy, while there are matters of higher importance on the national agenda, such as poverty reduction, the deteriorating health and education systems, a dwindling resources sector and the self-destructing service and employment sector.

Even countries with established democracies occasionally need to address issues outside the parameters of democracy. For example, the United States, Australia and New Zealand have all shifted from democratic paths when it suited them.

New Zealand certainly did not engage with the Maoris in observance of the tenets of democracy. Neither did Australia in its decimation of Aboriginals and Torres Strait islanders, nor the US in its annihilation of Native Americans and treatment of minorities. More recently, Australia's deplorable treatment of refugees was certainly not in line with the democratic principles it is so quick to preach about to the South Pacific nations, in particular, Fiji.

One can't help but make the observation that this kind of dictatorial sabre-rattling for democracy by New Zealand and Australia was conspicuously absent in the case of China, Pakistan and more recently, Indonesia. Perhaps the Eminent Persons Group from the South Pacific Forum countries, which recently visited Fiji will be allowed the same free passage to assess the plight of indigenous Australians and the abhorrent conditions that prevail in the country's various detention centres!

Where was this Eminent Persons Group in 1987 and 2000? Why is this group any more '`eminent'' than the EU and Commonwealth Election Observer groups who missed the pertinent issues by the proverbial mile?

A few eminent persons of our own - independent of the South Pacific Forum - have even questioned the credibility of some members to even be in this Eminent Persons Group given that some them did not declare their interests and have been involved in very undemocratic activities themselves. Their report is quite predictable: armed forces to the barracks and national elections sooner than later.

No attention was given to the wishes of the people of Fiji. No heed was paid by this so-called eminent group to the fact that the political life in Fiji has significantly stabilised since the hand-over of executive authority to President Ratu Josefa Iloilo.

The report, it seems, is yet another attempt to prop up and legitimise the much-maligned position that Qarase and his cronies had adopted under the guise of democracy. The report deliberately avoids any mention of the mini-Budget by the Interim Government, which is being compiled to pull out Fiji from a certain path of bankruptcy.

No mention is being made of the downsizing of the burgeoning public service previously headed by Qarase supporters on fat salaries. No word of approval on the recruitment of permanent secretaries to replace highly paid, very often incompetent and corrupt, chief executive officers and the reconfiguration and realignment of Government ministries.

The group makes no mention of the reinvigorated tourism industry, despite calculated efforts by our so-called friendly, neighbouring nations to impose travel bans to warn their citizens from travelling to Fiji. This so-called Eminent Persons Group made no effort to tap into the views of ordinary citizens of Fiji. Had they done so, they would have been told quite clearly that the law and order situation is at its best, tourists are starting to come back to Fiji's shores and businesses are thriving.

The Interim Government, through its streamlined Ministry for Foreign Affairs, is working on bilateral and multilateral engagements with immediate neighbours, including Australia and New Zealand. It is also sending delegations to India, China, Malaysia and Indonesia - the emerging economies of the future. And all of this is happening despite the calamities of widespread flooding and the closure of the Vatukoula mines, which will leave about 1700 people unemployed.

This has placed an additional burden on the newly formed Interim Government of Fiji, but no mentions of these are made in the group's report. The group spouts the same old gospel of democracy with no attention to economic recovery efforts in Fiji.

Countries that rather hypocritically `'cry'' for democracy are not quite democratic in their own conduct. Nascent forms of racism, discriminatory practices and jaundiced forms of justice are quite prevalent in these bastions of democracy.

At least Fiji admits to having these weaknesses, albeit a legacy of the Qarase era, and more importantly, in the full glare of international scrutiny, the Bainimarama Government has pledged to correct these deviant and corrupt practices that Qarase and his cronies engaged and indulged in for personal and political gains.

These were, in the Qarase era, masked by a sheen of a democratic hypocrisy that the US, Australia and New Zealand sponsored, endorsed and supported. Democracy is a subjective matter and one can only measure this rather elusive concept in shifts a country makes towards transparent, visible systems and processes, coupled with fair and just conduct in all matters pertaining to governance.

In Fiji's case, the move towards the path of democracy needs to be a well-considered and gradual one. Any impetuousness to appease and pacify just a few, including the Eminent Persons' Group, the forum countries and even the Commonwealth, will be a self-defeating proposition.

Fiji needs to heed the lessons of this hasty return to democracy in the aftermath of the previous coups and hostage taking. Any similar premature and ill-considered move would probably be quite catastrophic. The same can be said of the ill-conceived, hastily concocted and rather predictable advice contained in the report by the Eminent Persons' Group.

People of Fiji must be allowed to decide when and if they want to return to democracy and their national consciousness should not be dictated by a handful of highly paid NGO employees, lawyers who are really apologists for the blatantly corrupt and now, thankfully, deposed Qarase government and neighbouring nations with subtle but quite obvious, hidden agendas of their own.

There needs to be a widespread consultation and mature consideration and ratification via a national referendum before embarking on this rather illusionary path of democracy. In the meantime, Fiji should focus on the path to national economic recovery and make efforts towards becoming self-reliant and self-dependent. Fiji needs to develop sufficient capacities of its own to move away from depending on double-faced, fair-weather friends such as the US, Australia and New Zealand.

And this may not happen in the short term of up to two years that the eminent group prescribes in its report. The mechanisms that are prerequisites and an integral part of stable democracies need to be critically examined and strengthened before one can even contemplate moving towards a democratic election.

In Fiji's case, these would be an exhaustive review of the electoral system itself, which currently entrenches the existing racial divide and rather blatantly allows unscrupulous politicians to play the race card. Of course, people with a racist agenda will frown upon this constitutional shift, for their personal and political salvation is in keeping the major races polarised.

Fiji will have to move away from this type of racially divisive electoral system if it intends to achieve a stable democracy built on strong democratic principles of equity and fairness for all. Here, the Constitution will need to be tinkered with if not revised. But if a review is needed, then so be it.

It is an opportune time to examine this document in the context of a modern Fiji being part of a global community. Constitutions, like all national documents of law and conduct, need to be regularly reviewed and revised. Secondly, the electoral boundaries need to demarcated accurately to reflect geographical spread and shifts in Fiji's population and here, perhaps, the architects need to consider there being fewer constituencies to trim down the ever-burgeoning size of the parliament.

For the size of its population, Fiji seems to be over-governed; at least it certainly was when Qarase was at its helm. Thirdly, an accurate census needs to be carried out with, perhaps, the help of school teachers over the long, paid school holidays that they have as part of their conditions of employment. These teachers, through their social involvements in their respective school catchment areas, know best these regions as opposed to hired relatives of very many public servants who carried out voter registration for election 2006. This will avoid the debacle of the 2006 election when considerably more ballot papers were printed, giving rise to, perhaps justified speculations that the election was 'rigged' by the Qarase Government.

This, we hope, will come out in the wash when the armed forces carry out the clean-up of the electoral office. These are the bare minimum, but necessary, prerequisites to democracy and a deliberate oversight of these in impetuous haste to bring about a semblance of democracy to appease Australia and New Zealand and a handful of overpaid NGO employees funded by these countries would be not be in the best interests of the silent majority of Fiji.

Perhaps even the South Pacific Forum's Eminent Persons' Group will endorse this path of economic recovery and nation-building before Fiji travels the path of democratic national elections.

Club Em Designs

Foreign Flower or Foreign Policy?

Fiji Sun published an interesting opinion article written by a local promoter of social issues, regarding the subject of Democracy and the remote cat-calls for Fiji to return to it, voiced by some egalitarian nations.

Democracy in many disguises-Sham or genuine, the demand for a quick return to democracy solution

By Aisake Casimira

One of the predominant, if not central demands made of the interim government since the military ousted the Qarase government on the 5th of December 2006, was the “quick return to democracy” and, in the same breath “show us the road map to democracy”.

This demand was made not only by some local NGOs, lawyers, political parties and ousted politicians, but also from governments, organisations and NGOs outside the border. From Fiji’s closest neighbours - the Australian and New Zealand governments - to the farthest of governments and organisations - the US, EU, the Commonwealth, and at least one Human Rights organisation in the US have being singing the same tune.

From their point of view, it makes ‘democratic’ sense to legitimately re-establish ‘overnight majority rule’. This will ensure the resumption of bilateral aid, the release of project grants, the restoration of investor confidence and, hence, hasten economic recovery.

But, in a developing country like Fiji, it is not as simple as what these governments and organisations assumed. The “quick return to democracy” solution, in the form of holding general elections, for example, barely one year after the 1987 and 2000 coups respectively, if any thing, did not solve much of Fiji’s governance problems.

Rather, it left many issues unattended, in particular, the assessment of whether it was wise to pursue democracy at the same time that it was adopting a free market economic model.

One thing to note in this regard, as Amy Chua (2004:195) says, is that none of the western countries, including Australia and New Zealand ever adopted or implemented democracy and the free market or laissez-faire economic model at the same time.

[Chua](ibid) added that what helped these countries to implement democracy gradually (and not overnight, although overnight democracy is what has been touted by the western countries around the world through conditions on aid, objectives of governmental funding agencies and through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements), was the strong social welfare system they had.

This helped to cushion the worst impacts of the free market. The argument of the interim government, however, is that once the tasks set before them by the President - to review the electoral system, conduct the national census, revive the economy, etc - are achieved, then general elections can then be held.

The intention to care for the worst off in our society, the low income earners and the needy may not only be a necessary policy choice but may also be a wise one. If, in the meantime ‘democracy’ is suspended so as to ensure a stronger ‘democratic’ foundation for the future, then pursuing free market policies as well as solidifying and expanding our social welfare schemes may make a lot of sense, than simply a “quick return to democracy” with little substance to the process, with a weak social welfare system to cushion the impact of the free market.

The triumphalism view of the governments of New Zealand, Australia and the EU about democracy and their near fanatic insistence on a “quick return to democracy” solution rests in part on a certain hypocrisy. If universal suffrage were a reality rather than a sham, one might wonder whether most of today’s professed free marketeers, foreign investors and international financial organisations would be supporting it.

Indeed, even today, there are many within these countries and international organisations who, at the first sign of a possible trade-off between the free market and genuine democracy, make it clear that their first commitment is to the former.

A clear example of this is the New Zealand government’s recent commitment to continue talks with Fiji on the free trade agenda. Moreover, as one US economist said just after Venezuela’s democratically elected president Hugo Chavez was deposed in a military coup (and before he was reinstated), “Democracy is not necessarily the most efficient form of government.

It is better to be an open advocate of the priorities of the free market, (note here New Zealand’s ‘no problem attitude’ on continuing free trade talks with Fiji), than to be a self-congratulatory advocate of sham democracy.”

The difficulty that Australia, New Zealand and the EU seem to have with a genuine commitment to majority rule in Fiji is that genuine democracy could produce anti-market results such as justice, fairness and the application of democratic principles to the conduct of free trade and the free market, and the engendering of ethnic harmony in countries that have experienced ethnic tensions and violence in the past such as Fiji.

Instead, one would suspect that what New Zealand and Australian governments, in particular, really want by their call for a ‘quick return to democracy’ is sham democracy. Far from committing themselves to helping and assisting Fiji (and the Pacific Island countries) develop a genuine democratisation process, they seem to advocate a kind of democracy that will not interfere with their free market agenda and one that encourages ethnic dislike.

Being Fiji’s closest western neighbours, one would expect that Australia and New Zealand governments would have learned the lessons of history and not promote overnight majority rule (a form of democracy that even they have repudiated a long time ago) by their demand for a “quick return to democracy”.

Their assessment should have taught them that what is needed is their help in assisting Fiji (and the Pacific Island countries) to rethink the democratisation process over the past 2 or 3 decades. If genuine democracy and the free market are to be peacefully sustained and mutually beneficial, the process of democratisation cannot be reduced to carting ballot boxes and voting in national elections.

It has to mean more than overnight democracy, majority rule or merely freedom to vote and elect governments, although these are necessary factors. These countries seem to forget that there are many different models of democracy, even among themselves. Democracy can vary along a large number of axes: for example, the U.S style presidentialism versus the U.K style parliamentarism; first past the post electoral systems versus proportional representation; bottom up democratisation (starting with local village elections) versus top-down democratisation (starting with national, presidential elections).

These different versions of democracy can have significantly different effects on how the Pacific Islands govern themselves and their politics. The western countries one-sided view of democracy is quite revealing in the case of China. While China is fundamentally autocratic at the national level and has a bad human rights record, it has, according to politics professor, Minxin Pei (1998:68), been undergoing political reforms since the 1980s that are not even known to most western countries.

These political reforms have far reaching effects. He went on to add that throughout China, there are semi-open local village elections, which despite their limitations, offered a nontrivial measure of political participation, and more critically, legitimate competitive elections as an important part of the political process (ibid).

But the reason, says Minxin Pei, why these and other reforms happening at the local and national levels went unnoticed by the western countries is because their “… politicians and news media measure the progress of political reforms in other countries against a single yardstick - the holding of free and open elections at the national level.” (ibid) Indeed, democracy comes in many guises and it maybe neither the pakeha nor the kaivalagi’s road map to democracy that Fiji needs but one that is born out of the learnings of her recent and past experiences, however limited and ‘un-western-like’ it may be.

Note: Aisake Casimira works at the Pacific Conference of Churches. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of the organisation where he works.

Club Em Designs