One interesting opinion of Madraiwiwi was framed in his speech (PDF) at the Pacific Cooperation Foundation and later featured entirely in a Fiji Times (FT)article. The following is the excerpt of the FT article:
Challenges in building a new Fiji with a common vision
RATU JONI MADRAIWIWI
Thursday, May 29, 2008
One people ... we, as a people, must unstop the reservoir of goodwill that exists despite the ravages of four coups in 20 years
This is the address by former Vice-President Ratu Joni Madrawiwi at the annual Pacific Co-operation Foundation in Wellington and Auckland on this month.
Where does one begin? If we accept that four coups in the last 20 years have blighted our progress as a nation, what is the alternative? There is as yet no common vision to which we can all commit. Nor is there an identity that we all share and affirm together.
Beyond a collection of polyglot communities with an uneven sense of being citizens of Fiji, there is still a lack of shared values and unity. The fissures in our midst are a historical legacy.
However the time for blame, whether it is our long departed colonial masters or ourselves, has gone. We are responsible for perpetuating these divisions ourselves. How are we to create a new society with a renewed sense of purpose and commitment from the old?
Let us begin with developing a vision. A vision that articulates the nature of the society we feel represents the best of us and for which we are striving.
Our identity as citizens of Fiji is the practical reflection of this vision. In creating this vision, the people's voices must be heard. I mean the ordinary men and women of our country. Mine is just another elitist perspective.
We need to listen to people and find out what is it they conceive our vision to be.
The respective medium of radio and television, between them, would effectively reach the entire country so the concept of a vision could be easily explained.
People's opinions could be obtained by various means: whether by way of a tribunal soliciting opinions, a series of fora held across the nation to hear what people had to say or working through established structures such as provincial and advisory councils.
From these submissions, we could then distill what would best reflect a consensus. This vision would then be a guide and a reference point to which all of us could commit as well as share with each other. Together with this initiative, there must be a conscious effort by our new leaders (whoever they are) to adopt a no victors, no vanquished' policy.
This was adopted by General Gowon in Nigeria in 1966 after the Biafran civil war.
There is a worrying sentiment among some Fijians of penalising the Fiji-Indian community for its perceived support of the present regime when the country returns to democratic rule.
There is no place for these kinds of feelings.
Just as there was no cause for the triumphalism among Fijians that emerged post-May 1987 and post-May 2000.
Both kinds of emotions are counterproductive and destructive. Because they simply prolong division and dissension. Leadership will place a heavy responsibility on those who assume power.
They must initiate a process of reconciliation and engagement. This is unfinished business as the one which the previous SDL Government embarked upon was not inclusive enough.
It left many wounded and festering feelings in the Fiji-Indian and other communities.
So careful thought and wide consultation among civil society and the faith communities will be required to ensure that what is envisaged is workable and broadly acceptable.
We have examples of the Truth Commission in South Africa and similar Commissions in South American States such as Chile to consider.
It would be foolish of me to deny the existence of ethnic feelings in our society.
They exist in all our communities, but are more obvious among Fijians and Fiji-Indians because they are the larger groups. Social integration has been slow for obvious reasons: People are more comfortable with their own.
However, there are a series of initiatives that could be undertaken to reestablish a sense of fairness and reinforce social cohesion.
These include ensuring the merit principle is closely adhered to in the public service, with allowances for ethnic balance where necessary. This must apply to statutory corporations as well.
Care must be taken to ensure the awarding of scholarships to all students is open and transparent.
Where affirmative measures remain in place, they must be monitored, open to public scrutiny, and have measurable guidelines as well as time lines.
In addition, appointments to statutory boards and corporations must be carefully screened by the relevant authorities. Too often they have taken on an ethnic slant as well assuming an element of cronyism.
The military must become more reflective of the general population in its composition.
And I echo calls made by Mr Mahendra Chaudhry and Ratu Epeli Ganilau on previous occasions that consideration be given to the Vice Presidency being held by non-Fijians.
The collective purpose of these actions is to re-establish confidence in there being a level playing field as well as conveying inclusiveness. Much of the issue of vision and identity relates to the ambivalence of Fijians about those concepts.
In challenging Fijian institutions such as the Bose Levu Vakaturaga, the Methodist Church and the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua party, the Commander has provided opportunities for reflection and soul searching.
What real difference do the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) and the Fijian Administration (of which the BLV sits at the apex) make in the lives of ordinary Fijians?
Does the latter serve any purpose in view of the fact that the Government has responsibility for infrastructure and economic development?
What place has the traditional system in the scheme of things?
The Fijians themselves need to be heard on those issues. Their leaders have a responsibility to listen and discern what it is they want. In what form do they wish their indigenousness (and all that attached to it) survive. My preoccupation has not been with the form and the hierarchy. It is with the values of kinship, reciprocity and mutual respect that provide a bridge to the other communities. These are qualities that can be harnessed to enhance the vision we seek.
The stated aim of the interim regime to remove the present electoral system is welcome. Because there is little argument that it has reinforced ethnic patterns of voting.
But the process has survived this long because all political parties were supportive of it. The concerns of some Fijians who resist any change because it would remove their ethnically entitled seats is understandable. But it is mistaken.
The preponderance of Fijians in the population, coupled with Fiji-Indian emigration, will ensure Fijian numerical superiority in the next elections however boundaries are drawn.
We no longer need those ethnically based seats from the Fijian point of view because their fears of being swamped no longer apply. However, the Fiji-Indian community may now be reconsidering the issue because under the present arrangement, they are guaranteed a certain number of seats.
The concern now is the protection of minorities.
Whether they are Fiji-Indian or from other communities, they must be guaranteed a voice in Parliament. The only system that assures that outcome is proportional representation.
That is what we need to be thinking about. It does not prevent ethnic voting but it does more accurately reflect the will of the electorate and the support for political parties.
There is space for parties that attempt to capture the middle ground.
Those who favour the charter process that has been initiated by the National Council for Building A Better Fiji, are fond of saying elections will not solve any of our underlying problems. That is not their purpose.
Elections create the basis for legitimacy. It is a mandate from the electorate. They begin the process of re-establishing democratic governance. That is why it is critical for there to be political engagement.
It matters not whether it is through the informal process sponsored by the Commonwealth Secretariat (Comsec) or the more formal joint UN/Comsec initiative proposed by the interim Government.
If one takes the interim regime at its word, the Constitution is intact. It cannot be amended by referendum or presidential promulgation. Therefore, the next elections will have to be held under the present electoral system.
All the more reason to encourage political engagement, dialogue and agreement.
Subsequently, the elections could then be held with the new Parliament then amending the Constitution in accordance with what had been agreed. In spite of the divisions that have been exacerbated by the December coup, it is absolutely critical that the next government is one of national unity.
The Constitution envisages a multi-party government but that could be altered to allow for more flexibility. The imperative for such a government is self-evident.
At a time when our country has been fractured as never before, it requires a government with which the entire nation can identify. It is a tragedy in hindsight that we lacked the courage and the statesmanship to do so after the upheavals of May 2000.
We need national solutions to our problems and we need a government that has a broad mandate to consolidate and deal with the issues decisively.
These are readily identified.
Re-establishing mutual trust and confidence between the government and the people as well as between communities will be a continuing preoccupation.
Restoration of the economy and our relationships with both Australia and New Zealand are critical. Economic growth has averaged 2 per cent for the last decade, which is inadequate to cater for employment opportunities, infrastructure, health and social services as well as alarming levels of poverty and related social ills.
Definitive solutions still evade the landlord tenant relationship in relation to native leases.
All these issues require the requisite political will and commitment to be dealt in an integrated manner. There is a legitimate concern about the absence of an opposition were there to be a government of national unity.
It is important to remember that this new government will have heavy responsibilities to meet and high expectations to live up to.
Not only will it have to restore trust and confidence in the institutions of state as well as in the community, it will have to build the economy and deal with rising levels of poverty and degradation.
We have become accustomed to thinking in terms of an opposition in the Westminster form of government.
Under our Constitution, there is provision for sector committees on various aspects of government. Given the appropriate understanding and agreement among the political parties, these committees have the potential to function as a check on the executive.
What is required is a redrafting of the Standing Orders of the House and Senate to reflect these changed circumstances.
There is an element of good faith as well that the major political parties will not use their numbers to sabotage these arrangements.
The immediate concern is the role of the military. They have been at the centre of the four coups we have had. Their pronouncements since the December 5, 2006, do not suggest any dilution of their assertions they are the guarantors of stability and order. To deny them any participation in national affairs for the foreseeable future would be unrealistic.
But clear protocols need to be developed between the government and the military.
Regular consultations need to take place as well. Discussions will need to take place about its size as well. A considerable portion of the budget is allocated to the military.
The starting point must be the question of immunity. It is an issue which divides those who opposed the coup of December 5, 2006. But it is a matter of realpolitik.
Without it the military will not engage let alone negotiate. But perhaps the nature of the immunity can be discussed. Because there are certain military officers who must be held accountable for some of the serious human rights abuses.
I accept the argument that this approach may encourage future coups. It is a risk we must be prepared to take. The room for maneuver is slight and this potential threat will have to be addressed over the long term. It will lie in the strengthening of democratic institutions and civil society as well as the inculcation of democratic values in the community.
Part of those developments must necessarily include greater engagement with the military in understanding its proper role in a liberal democracy. There is the challenge to build a democratic culture.
It needs to be inculcated in the hearts and minds of the people. Part of the problem is that the chattering classes themselves are ambivalent about the concept as can be seen in the coup of December, 2006.
Too often, principle has been sacrificed for political gain. As long as this continues, the military will be nurtured in its misconceptions. The creation of a democratic culture is a gradual process. It will require the concerted efforts of all sections of our society.
Introducing more horizontal structures and accessible forms of authority whether in the traditional sphere or the religious organisations which play an influential part in our lives would reinforce these tendencies.
What it takes is the empowerment of people within their own communities. To allow them to develop the capacities to be assertive and questioning of authority.
This would be achieved by encouraging them to participate in decision-making and in the discussions surrounding them. Civil society has played and is playing a significant role in this empowerment.
Many of them have given voice to those who otherwise would not be heard.
While there has been a split between those who had supported the coup for reasons of social justice and others who recognise the indivisibility of rights (political, economic and social), there is no denying the increased prominence to social issues given their advocacy.
In fashioning not so much as a new Fiji as a better one than we already have, an attempt has been made to put this in the context of the significant factors at play. The challenges do not lie in the actual economic, social and political problems that we face although they are in themselves considerable.
Those will always be there in one form or another.
The challenges arise out of the barriers we have erected, and perpetuated for one reason or another. They have created these distances between us as members of the various communities that comprise Fiji.
Time and again they have been manipulated for advantage by one side or another. In the latest twist, the spectre of ethnonationalism was used to justify the coup. We can dismantle these barriers because I still believe in our country and its people. In spite of our vicissitudes, there has been minimal violence.
There continues to be reservoirs of goodwill in spite of all that has happened.
They will be required to put in place a vision and identity that belongs to all of us, together with the actual practice of the democratic principles we all affirm, so that we break this cycle of instability that has been our albatross for the past two decades.
A particular line in Madraiwiwi's speech at Pacific Cooperation Foundation refers to the debate between the Charter and the Elections:
Those who favour the charter process that has been initiated by the National Council for Building A Better Fiji, are fond of saying elections will not solve any of our underlying problems. That is not their purpose.
Elections create the basis for legitimacy. It is a mandate from the electorate. They begin the process of re-establishing democratic governance. That is why it is critical for there to be political engagement.
Days after his Wellington speech, Madraiwiwi is a keynote speaker at the Fiji Institute of Accountants conference at a Sigatoka resort and stated that "There was no use to have an election" in a Q & A session published in a FT article. The excerpt is as follows:
No use to have polls: Ratu Joni
Friday, June 13, 2008
Update: 5:01PM THERE is no use having elections if the interim Government wishes to limit it, says former Vice president of Fiji and lawyer Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi.
He made this comments at a panel discussion at the Fiji Institute of Accountants Congress held in Sigatoka today.
Ratu Joni said: "I think the question one needs to ask is if the army commander does not want a party that has indigenous platform as part of the manifesto in the next elections, then really what is the point of having the elections at all.
"We need to have discussion and if the military and commander wishes to limit the elections then what is the point of having elections."
Ratu Joni was responding to questions raised by the Pacific Suns general manager Manoa Kamikamica who questioned the panelist in regards to whether elections were the best way forward.
The panelist included the Australian high Commissioner James Batley, Ratu Joni, Fiji Waters director of Marketing Margo Schmidt and Westpac Banking Corporations general Manager Fiji John Cashmore.
Fiji TV news captured segments of Madraiwiwi's speech at the Fiji Institute of Accountants conference.
Video 1 below: Madraiwiwi on The Abrogation of the Fiji Constitution and the future role of the Fiji military.
Video 2 below: Madraiwiwi on the Judiciary in Fiji.
Placed in context, Madraiwiwi had indicated in his Wellington speech, that his view is an elitist perspective. One may extrapolate that, most of Madraiwiwi's speeches and social circles are ingrained with elitism:
Our identity as citizens of Fiji is the practical reflection of this vision. In creating this vision, the people's voices must be heard. I mean the ordinary men and women of our country. Mine is just another elitist perspective.
Some readers may also detect verisimilitude opinions. Fiji Ombudsman labeled Madraiwiwi's comments as"running out of ideas" in a Fiji Times article. The excerpt of FT article:
Ratu Joni running out of ideas: Shameem
Friday, May 23, 2008
Update: 4:59PM Ombudsman Dr Shaista Shameem says people like former Vice President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi were running out of ideas about what to do with their political platforms.
She said Ratu Joni was threatened by the constitutional authority and legal effectiveness of the Fiji Human Rights Commission. [Shameem] said everyone knew the effectiveness of the FHRC since its inception and that the Commission no longer had to prove anything to anyone.
Dr Shameem said it was a waste of time and breath for Ratu Joni to keep harping about the FHRC because it was here to stay.
While Madraiwiwi called for the Fijian people to speak up, in the Wellington speech:
The Fijians themselves need to be heard on those issues. Their leaders have a responsibility to listen and discern what it is they want. In what form do they wish their indigenousness (and all that attached to it) survive. My preoccupation has not been with the form and the hierarchy. It is with the values of kinship, reciprocity and mutual respect that provide a bridge to the other communities.
Although, Madraiwiwi commented on the values of culture which he wants to keep intact, among these are kinship, reciprocity and mutual respect; perhaps all three values were instinctively demonstrated by Madraiwiwi, when he became a character witness to Alice Tabete, a former CEO of Fiji Sports Council, which an earlier SiFM posting "Ways and Means" addressed.
The "Tabete factor" undeniably taints the integrity of Madraiwiwi and his ability to speak on national issues. Madraiwiwi's role in helping the absconding Alice Tabete, was covered in a Fiji TV news article.
The excerpt of Fiji TV article:
Tabete applies for permanent residency in New Zealand
18 Feb 2008 00:57:35
It has emerged former Fiji Sports Council chief executive officer Alice Tabete has applied for temporary or permanent residency in New Zealand.
The information is contained in a letter of support written for Tabete by the former vice president Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi. The Bauan chief says in the letter Tabete is being pursued by authorities here for political expediency.
A copy of this letter was obtained by One National News.
Its dated 4th February 2008.
The former vice president Ratu Joni Mandraiwiwi wrote this letter in support of Alice Tabete. Ratu Joni says both Tabete and him have traditional connections.
He writes since 5 December 2006 when the Republic of Fiji Military Forces ousted the elected Government, our system of justice has been exposed to great pressures and compromised to some extent.
Ratu Joni then writes about the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption which is currently investigating Alice Tabete. He says investigations are usually commenced in a blaze of publicity with scant regard for the reputation of those accused.
Adding the entire point to this recitation of events is that Alice will most likely be treated in the same manner.
Ratu Joni writes in the nine months since her termination, Alice Tabete hadn't been charged and that she was prevented from living the country twice. He says Tabete was only allowed to leave the country after the Commander himself intervened.
Ratu Joni writes in light of the foregoing I have no hesitation in supporting Alice Tabete's application for temporary or permanent residence in New Zealand for the reason that the authorities wish to pursue her for political expediency to justify the clean up campaign rather than on substantive grounds.
In reply to our queries today Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi said he had no comments. Alice Tabete hadn't answered our e-mailed questions when this report was prepared.
A response to the Madraiwiwi's Pacific Cooperation Foundation speech was published in the FT Letters to the Editor column, authored from former Fijian Holdings (FHL)board member according to the FHL website, Radike Qereqeretabua. Indeed the questions from Qereqeretabua are pertinent but also belated, when juxtaposed with his tenure at Fijian Holdings, the supposed investment vehicle for indigenous Fijians, currently being under review by the Interim Government. The excerpt of Qereqeretabua's letter:
What difference?
I write to express my full support for the views of the Roko Tui Bau, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi (FT27/5), and I will be very surprised if most Fijians do not share the same sentiments, and indeed do ask the same question: "what real difference do the GCC and the Fijian administration make in the lives of ordinary Fijians".
One does not have to look very hard or very far to find evidence of the deterioration of the living standards and morals of the Fijian people in general, in spite of the long existence of these two institutions the Fijian Affairs Board, and the GCC.
We look at the prison population, the perpetrators of burglaries, break-ins, rape and incest; the dilapidated Fijian villages, the ever growing number of Fijian families in squatter settlements while some Fijian land lie idle.
We look at the poor shipping services for the maritime provinces of Lau and Kadavu, Lomaiviti, and Rotuma; the largely neglected roads in these islands including southern Taveuni the Garden Island of Fjii.
We look at the generally poor conditions of Fijian schools in the rural areas, yet we continue to wonder why Fijians are comparatively backwards in education results and achievements compared to our Indian counterparts.
Last year I questioned the wisdom of our Fijian leaders in their decision to build a $30m GCC complex while Indian leaders opted to establish the University of Fjii an affordable institution of higher learning for the nation's youth alike, an institution that will make a great contribution to their future livelihood, and to the nation as a whole.
I stated then that what the Fijian people need are "monumental decisions" from our chiefs and political leaders: decisions that will change our lives for the better: not monumental buildings which only serves the purpose of self-aggrandisement and the creation of inflated egos for themselves, but absolutely useless for the betterment of the lives of the ordinary Fijian.
Radike Qereqeretabua
Cuvu
Nadroga
Social Bookmarking
