The fear of the Fijian people
11/19/2008
The power of the Indigenous Affairs Minister to overturn appointments made by the provincial councils is totally against the voice of the Fijian people.
We know that with the current interpretation of the Fijian Affairs Act by the interim government, the provincial council is an arm of the government.
We also know that the provincial council is where the voice of the Fijian people representing their districts is heard.
Now the government is in total control of all the provincial councils in Fiji.
With the reforms in the Fijian institutions, Fijians feel that their rights are under siege.
Former Vice President Turaga na Roko Tui Bau Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi in delivering the keynote address at the Fijian Teachers Association annual general meeting this year said: “There is a feeling among many Fijians that their rights as indigenous peoples are under siege.
Whether by the marginalisation of their elected representatives and preferred political party, the reversal of affirmative action programmes, arbitrary changes to Fijian institutions such as the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and the perceived targeting of the Fijian elite: ‘something is rotten in the state of Denmark,’ to quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. “
We know of the power conferred on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the new Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2008.
And this new regulation will create more crises for the high Fijian institution.
This will be in regard to the appointment of its membership.
According to section 3 (5) of the new Regulations: “The Minister shall be the chairperson of the council.”
Section 3 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) deal with membership.
This particular section confers overall power of appointment on the Minister for Fijian Affairs.
S3 (1) (b) states: “the 42 persons who are prescribed by regulations 2 (b) of the Composition Regulations to be members representing the chiefs of the 14 provinces shall comprise of three chiefs from each of the 14 provinces, each of whom shall have demonstrated exemplary leadership in vanua and in the community at large, and shall be appointed by the minister.”
Section 6 deals with the disqualification of members.
It states: “A person shall not be eligible to be appointed as a member of the council under regulation (3) (1)
(b), (c) or (d) if the person: -
(a) is an undischarged bankrupt;
(b) is under a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called);
(c) has, within the 10 years immediately proceeding his appointment -
(i) been released from prison after serving a term of imprisonment of
more than six months, whether as an inmate or extra mural prisoner; or
(ii) completed serving/performing a community service order;
(d) has at any time during the immediately preceding 7 years, been,
(i) a member of the House of Representative (s); or
(ii) a Senator other than a Senator nominated from the Great Council of Chiefs;
(e) is the holder of a public office;
(f) has at any time during the immediately preceding 7 years been -
(i) a candidate for election to the House of
Representative; or
(ii)
an office bearer of a political party;
(g) is a person of unsound mind within the meaning of the Mental
Treatment Act (Cap 113); or
(h) is by virtue of his own act under any
acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a power or State outside Fiji, including being a citizen or resident of another country.
The new regulations have given the power to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to discipline any member.
This power is also applicable to the provincial council memberships.
On 25th May the Permanent Secretary for Indigenous Affairs, Meli Bainimarama wrote a letter to the Roko Tui Rewa in regard to the membership of the Rewa Provincial Council.
The content of the letter is as follows: “I wish to advise you that the Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs has appointed the following to the Rewa Provincial Council under the provisions of Regulations 3 of the Fijian Affairs (Provincial Councils) Regulations:-
i) Urban Mata - Reg 3 (i) - Ro Etuate Mataitini, Taniela Vueta, Pita
Tagicakiverata
ii) Women Mata - Reg 3(i) (d) - Ro Elenoa C Gonelevu
iii) Youth Mata - Reg 3 (i) (e) - Etika Senico
iv) Other Members
- Reg 3 (i) (f) - Ro Epeli Mataitini, Ro Viliame Logavatu, Ro Dona Takalaiyale,
Temesia Nacolarara, Vilimoni Rasigatale, Naibuka Navunisaravi.
These appointments are for three (3) years effective from 17 April 2008.
The appointment of Ro Filipe Tuisawau one of the four (4) recommended Urban Mata has been withdrawn by the Minister and you will need to submit another name, should you wish to do so.”
Ro Filipe was appointed not only because of his chiefly status in the province but also because of his good educational background.
The people of Rewa had nominated him to be one of the representatives of the urban area. Now their voices are not heard. The young Rewa chief had been informed of this development and was very disappointed.
He has written to the Fiji Human Rights Commission.
In his letter to FHRC and attention to Maciu Ratumaimuri, Ro Filipe aired his disappointment on the withdrawal of his appointment to the Rewa Provincial Council.
In the letter he said:
"You will notice that no reason is given but it is a well known fact that he had publicly announced that he would sack me due to my role in Rewa’s opposition to the People’s Charter.
“His actions are a breach of the 1997 Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom to express one’s political beliefs. These values are also enshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have been victimised for expressing my beliefs.
“I hereby formally lodge this complaint to you to address the breach of my fundamental human rights and that I be reinstated as a full member of the Rewa Provincial Council.
I have the fullest confidence that you will address this serious breach.”
We hope the FHRC will look into this matter.
The Rewa Provincial Council is in the dark on the reason for the revocation of the appointment.
Deputy chairman Pita Tagicakiverata told Fijilive the council was formally told of Ro Filipe’s removal at its two-day meeting in Lomanikoro last week.
“Before the meeting, Ro Filipe had actually told me what happened but we really don’t know the reasons behind this move as nothing was stated,” said Mr Tagicakiverata.
“He has accepted the letter (from the Fijian Affairs Board), but we really don’t know why this was done.”
Ro Filipe has been a very strong critic of the People’s Charter. Is the withdrawal of his appointment a pay back for this?
He had been using his right to freedom of expression when criticising the charter.
Below is Dr Brij Lal’s comments on the issue.
“There is a great deal of anxiety among the Fijian people. As they see it,
everything has gone wrong for them. Their cherished institutions have been hobbled and marginalised, such as the Great Council of Chiefs. Institutions to which they looked up for leadership and guidance have now been disabled.
And what is particularly perplexing for them is that all this is being done
by an institution, the military, which was supposed to be the guardian of their interests. So the Fijian peoples’ sense of fear and anxiety and powerlessness is real - and understandable.
“There will be little argument that some, and not only Fijian, institutions need reform to bring them into line with modern thinking. But this should be done through sensitive handling and in cooperation with the people whose lives will be affected by the reforms. Commodore Bainimarama may mean well, but he is going about things the wrong way.
He seems to prefer monologue to dialogue. Instead of winning the hearts and minds of his people for his reforms, he has alienated them, pushed them into a corner, and hardened their resolve not to cooperate, leading them to adopt stances which, in the normal course of events, they might not. The prospect for genuine dialogue is thereby dimmed. Sullen silence is not consent.”
To be fair to Ro Filipe and those who appointed him, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs should give the reason why his appointment has been withdrawn.
The indigenous people have this fear with them - “their rights have been under siege”.
written by Swami. K.
, that was published in The Fiji Times, noted how several Fiji politicians (past and present) were overly eager to praise the election of Barack Obama, yet fail to understand the dichotomy in their entrenched positions.
Obama, democracy and Fiji
SWANI K MAHARAJ
Fiji Times Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Barack Obama's victory in the US presidential elections has been hailed all over the world.
In Fiji, political leaders of all leanings have used the victory to make pointed remarks at the interim Government, for example, Fiji should learn a lesson from it and return to democratic rule, Fiji is languishing in the clutches of the military and should return to democratic rule.
Some say the US army did not go about trying to sway the people as the RFMF did
before the 2006 election and others have remarked that the US army has not
interfered with the result of a fair and free election.
Quite rightly, people see Obama's victory as the power of the ballot box, a realisation of a change desired by the collective will of the American people, a democratic and
civilised acceptance of the verdict of the people.
A seeming impossibility has been made possible -- America has an Afro-American president, after 140 years of painful co-existence.
The inhumanity perpetrated on slaves is well documented in literature and history, as is their struggle for human rights and dignity and for identity in the face of the ideology white supremacy.
There are many similarities between the history of the US and that of Fiji, as well as
many notable differences.The ancestors of Afro-Americans were brought to
America as slaves, creating a multi-ethnic society unacceptable to the white
population. Similarly, indentured labourers (a fancy name for semi slaves)
were brought to Fiji to make it a viable economic asset for the British
Crown. Although the indentured labourers suffered terrible injustice and
physical torture, it was not as bad or as prolonged as that of slaves in
America.
But the notable difference is that while Afro-Americans today are
equal citizens of America, Indo-Fijians are still unequal in terms of
fundamental and political enfranchisement.
A victory over prejudice Obama's presidential victory is not the victory of an Afro-American in politics but it is in reality a victory of white Americans over their white
supremacist ideology.
Essentially, it is a victory over their own prejudice based on the colour of skin and ethnicity. It is a victory over vested self-interest that had rationalised and utilised racial prejudice to achieve privileges and retain power.
The many leaders in Fiji, who with great agility have jumped on the bandwagon of the democratic US election, need to look at Obama's victory in that light.
They need to look very incisively at their own concepts of democracy.
They will find that rather than being advocates of true democracy and human rights in Fiji, they are in reality advocating quite the reverse of what America has achieved.
They are advocating ethnic hegemony, inherent inequality based on birth and ethnicity and the denial of equal political rights to all Fiji citizens.
The 2008 US election results has a number of implications for Fiji as well as for the conclusions we draw from it.
The United States is a truly democratic nation. Each citizen who
qualifies to vote has equal value for his or her vote, regardless of the voter's
country of origin, ethnicity or religion. Every American's (yes, they are all
called Americans) vote, whether the person is of Hispanic, African, Chinese or
Indian origin, has equal value.
Every American who is eligible, has the right to vote for the president, albeit it is an indirect vote through the electoral college. No group is denied this fundamental and democratic right on the basis of ethnicity or any other criteria.
The democracy of the supporters of democracy Leaders in Fiji need to look at this aspect honestly and sincerely. While it is easy to criticise the interim Government, it is particularly difficult to do a self analysis and ask why they demand a quick
return to democracy.
Also, it is important to analyse the word democracy. Can the leaders honestly say Fiji is a democracy as the USA is?
Consider that some powerful groups who openly and adamantly support certain political parties are demanding that Fiji be made a Christian country.
Is this an example of democratic ideology?How democratic is it to give affirmative economic assistance based solely on ethnicity and not on an assessment of poverty and merit?
Other so-called leaders are similarly blinkered. They represent a segment of the population which, on the basis of ethnicity, has no right to contest for the presidency or vice-presidency of Fiji. Over and above this injustice they do not have the right to vote for these two important posts.
Yet, their leaders are calling for the restoration of democracy. Amazing.
Obama, even if he had lost, was entitled to contest the US election. But do all the citizens of Fiji have this right?
Some of us cannot contest certain positions because of ethnicity while others are barred on the grounds of birth. Both these conditions are absolutely
undemocratic.
Certainly, those singing the praises of the democratic process in the US are blissfully innocent of the fact that the Fiji Constitution denies 95 per cent of the population the right to contest the post of president or VP.
Those who have been beating their chests and screaming for the Constitution and constitutionality of every minor political incident over the past two years need to take an honest look at these constitutional provisions. It is amazing how so many political players and our democratic international friends are completely blind to the inherently undemocratic constitutional provisions in the 1997 Constitution.
When the Americans went to vote this year they had a black man against a white man. But was this the theme of Senator MCain's election campaign, his speeches or publicity material?
No, but in Fiji, the election rhetoric focuses solely on my party, my race/ethnic group.
America's political parties are called Democrats and Republicans. But study the names of the majority of political parties in Fiji.
How democratic are the names?Why do these parties have such names? And if
the parties are so named and their target group so delineated, what is the implication for democracy in Fiji?
When Mahendra Chaudhry became Fiji's prime minister, the media carried comments of many people who did not want an "idol worshipper" as PM.
A prominent leader called for all segments of Fiji's population to be converted (the call is echoed frequently, even today).
I rebutted the two undemocratic and bigoted views through The Fiji Times.
Do such people understand democracy?Take the opposition to the Prople's Charter. How many argue that it is undemocratic because the government promoting it is 'illegal'.
But what about the contents of the Charter, such as:
- The abolition of the politics of race?
- Giving affirmative action based on need, not ethnicity which is used to create and sustain vote banks?
- Removing from the national psyche the ethnicity based injustices.
These people need to look into their hearts and see what is obvious - they are
blocking the Charter simply out of fear - the fear that if the 'ordinary' citizens will admire the ideals in the Charter.
Consequently, the leaders will not be able to exploit the common people and win votes on the basis of racism. And this they call democracy?
This is farcical!It is also ironic that those calling most vehemently for democracy are actively dictating that villages should bar the Charter teams. For this purpose, they are using the power of heredity position or religious status.
Is this democracy?Is this not rather schizophrenic and contradictory?
True Support of Democracy
True democratic representation is by every party, and for all the citizens.
It cannot be based on the colonial hangover of ethnic group voting
which is the antithesis of democracy. It is absurd to say that candidates
representing certain groups - and winning elections on in-group identification and solidarity - will work for all the citizens of the country.
They will not. They will protect their vote bank - and in order to do so they will
create inter-ethnic distrust. Those who profess to be ardent advocates of
democracy should work towards the Interim Government's proposed electoral
changes.
Fijians are now 57 per cent of the population - a very clear majority, favourable to SDL. One assumes that SDL would therefore agree to the proposal of one person one vote. Therefore SDL's insistence on retaining communal based voting is indeed a matter of grave concern.
FLP supports these electoral changes but NFP doesn't. What possible reason can NFP have for opposing common roll which is a fundamental ideal of the party, and which would guarantee true democratic rights to their supporters?
General Electors should not have any objection in accepting the above proposal.
The International community should also support this initiative of adult human suffrage.
Or they should emulate Fiji's race based system and implement it in their own
countries to show that this is truly democratic system and acceptable to
them. Some urgent and useful measures for the future are:
- Race based political parties should be banned.
- A Race Relations Bill should be
enacted. - Legislation must be enacted to forbid the use of ethnicity,
religion or racism to manipulate voters.
Apartheid has long been abolished in South Africa, why are we prolonging it in Fiji?
Those who truly support democracy should in all honesty contribute to the Political Forum to achieve resolutions beneficial to all Fiji citizens - and not only for their own ethnic group or for political survival.
These narrow concepts should be surmounted because in the ultimate analysis they are detrimental to the common good. I would like to point out that Obama did not become president on the basis of any special political privileges such as being a member of a minority or a disadvantaged group.
True democracy is not achieved simply by voting - it is achieved by contesting as equals for human equality, dignity and justice.
Swani K Maharaj is the acting president of the Fiji Chamber of
Commerce.
The views are the writer's own.
