Its core function, says the Fijian Affairs Act, is to advise the President on questions relating to the good government and well-being of the Fijian people.
Other important functions of the GCC are set out in the Constitution.
They include appointing the President and Vice President of Fiji, and appointing 14 members of the 32-member Senate.
The Reeves Commission in 1996 made recommendations for sweeping reform of the GCC, most of which were ultimately not adopted by Parliament.
Among these was a proposal to expand the core function of the GCC to include consideration not only of the well-being of the Fijian people, but matters affecting the nation.
Another proposal was that the GCC should no longer nominate senators, but should itself be responsible for approving any alteration of native land laws or the Fijian Affairs Act.
The Reeves Commission reasoned that taking laws dealing with native land, and so on, out of the hands of Parliament could help to remove these laws from the political process and allay fears that a multi-ethnic government might put indigenous group rights at risk.
Had these proposals been adopted, they would have substantially increased the powers of the GCC.
Recognising that greater power implies greater responsibility, the Reeves Commission recommended that the GCC should be autonomous from the Ministry of Fijians Affairs and the Fijian Affairs Board in matters relating to its secretariat and funding, and that a provision be included in the Constitution to ensure the GCC acted independently of the Government and any political party.
Perhaps most significantly of all, the Reeves Commission recommended reform in the GCC's membership.
It proposed that the President, the Fijian Affairs Minister and the heads of the three confederacies should remain ex-officio members, 20 members should be selected jointly by the heads of the confederacies, five should be nominated by the chairperson of the GCC, 14 should be elected by the provincial councils and one should be elected by the Council of Rotuma.
A representative of the Rabi Island Council was to be invited when matters relating to the Banaban community were under discussion.
Clearly, this would have produced a quite different GCC to the one that exists today.
Most notably, the Prime Minister would not be a member and there would be no appointments on the nomination of the Fijian Affairs Minister (where there are currently six).
It seems likely that the Reeves Commission's proposal would have produced a GCC that was less political in its membership and more independent of the Government.
In 2004, a review of the Fijian Administration commissioned by the Fijian Affairs Ministry and conducted by a team of local experts (including the current Vice President) recommended reform of the GCC, and paid particular attention to its membership.
The review team was more cautious than the Reeves Commission in recommending an expansion of the GCC's functions.
However, it too proposed that the GCC should be able to advise the President on national matters, and not just those affecting indigenous people.
On the GCC's membership, the 2004 review team commented:
"There is concern that the election of delegates to contribute to the (GCC) is not always based on merit and often influenced by chiefs in the provinces or others with their personal agenda to ensure that their views prevail."
To address this concern, the team emphasised the need for the GCC to act, and be seen to act, independently of the Government.
They recommended that the overall size of the GCC be reduced to 35, with 30 of its members selected by Bose Vanua ni Yasana (new bodies comprising the heads of the vanua in each province) and the Council of Rotuma; the Fijian Affairs Minister as the only ex-officio member; the heads of the three confederacies; and, if the GCC wishes, Sitiveni Rabuka.
Like the Reeves Commission, the review team proposed a reduction in government representation on the GCC and the abolition of ministerial nominations to it.
However, like the Reeves Commission, the recommendations of the 2004 review team for reform of the GCC have not been adopted.
This may reflect relative satisfaction on the part of successive governments with the functioning of the GCC as it is.
For example, only last week the Prime Minister described the GCC as "a repository of chiefly wisdom and authority" and complimented its role in dealing with the coups in 1987 and 2000 in the following terms:
"In 1987 and 2000 (the GCC) demonstrated its ability to deal with the fundamental issues of peace and stability."
It must be said that this statement is frankly offensive to those of us who stood up for democracy and the rule of law in 1987 and 2000.
The fact of the matter is that on both occasions, when the country was in crisis, the GCC found itself unable to clearly condemn the violent and illegal overthrow of democratically-elected governments.
For the Prime Minister to suggest that, by condoning the coups, the GCC helped to promote peace and stability in Fiji, is patent nonsense.
A coup is the exact opposite of peace and stability.
It does not matter who leads the elected government whether it is Timoci Bavadra, Mahendra Chaudhry, or Laisenia Qarase himself.
Under no circumstances can a coup promote peace and stability.
So what happened to the GCC in 1987 and 2000?
The emphasis placed by the Reeves Commission and the 2004 review team on the need for the GCC to be independent of government suggests they were both concerned that the GCC, in its existing form, is vulnerable to political manipulation.
The Citizens' Constitutional Forum shares this concern.
We are not anti-GCC.
However, when the high chiefs of Fiji allow themselves to become the mouthpieces of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua, ethno-nationalist thugs, or any other political party or interest group, they bring discredit on the GCC and the chiefly system.
To take a recent example, consider the fate of the immediate past-chairperson of the GCC, Ratu Epeli Ganilau.
Ratu Epeli served on the GCC from 1999, when he was appointed on the nomination of the then Fijian Affairs Minister.
In 2001, he was elected chairperson.
In that role, Ratu Epeli was outspoken in promoting multi-racialism, and calling for the perpetrators of the 2000 coup to be brought to justice.
In 2004, the Government, allegedly through the manipulation of Attorney-General Qoriniasi Bale and the CEO in the Prime Minister's Office, Jioji Kotobalavu, unceremoniously dumped Ratu Epeli by declining to renew his GCC membership.
No reason was given, but comments made by Cabinet ministers at the time made it clear they did not welcome Ratu Epeli's assertive brand of leadership of the GCC.
While the Government may have been within its rights not to renew Ratu Epeli's membership in 2004, the decision demonstrated that politics and (in the case of ministers then facing coup-related charges) self-interest were uppermost in the minds of Mr Qarase and his Cabinet members in selecting their GCC nominees.
In 2005, political manipulation of the chiefly system was again in evidence in the debate on the Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance and Unity Bill.
Amid widespread public opposition, government representatives toured the provincial councils to secure their support for the Bill.
Non-government representatives were excluded from these meetings, and it later emerged that many members of provincial councils did not attend either.
Many of those who did attend had no opportunity to read the Bill for themselves.
Unsurprisingly, with one or two reservations here and there, the 14 councils obediently declared their support.
When it came time for the GCC to consider the Bill, however, the high chiefs of Fiji gave a hint of their true potential.
Instead of simply falling in line behind the provincial councils and the Government, they invited the Bill's opponents to make presentations, including representatives of the Fiji Labour Party, the military and civil society.
This was of course essential if the GCC was to gain a meaningful understanding of the debate.
In its resolution on the Bill, the GCC did not oppose the Government, but nonetheless called for the concerns of the Bill's opponents to be addressed.
In other words, in accordance with Pacific tradition, the chiefs called for more dialogue.
Last week, when the GCC met to consider the stand-off between the Government and the military, the RFMF commander declined to attend. He clearly felt the GCC was acting as a tool of the SDL, and that it would not give him a fair hearing.
That perception is very damaging for the GCC.
It cannot help to resolve disputes if it is not seen by both sides as an independent arbiter.
The CCF believes the GCC's functions should be formally expanded to include advising the President on matters affecting the nation.
This would will legal support to the current practice, and be consistent with intentions expressed publicly by the President.
However, the CCF believes that the problem of political manipulation of the GCC needs to be urgently addressed.
The Reeves Commission recognised the problem.
So did the Fijian Affairs Ministry's 2004 review team.
The Government should be represented on the GCC by one ex-officio member the Fijian Affairs Minister and it should not nominate any other member of the GCC. Options could be explored for shielding the position of chairperson from outside pressure. Another useful exercise would be to reassess relationships between the provincial councils and their GCC representatives.
If provincial councils are to continue electing GCC delegates, should the membership of the provincial councils be reviewed?
The 2004 review team certainly thought so.
Finally, the GCC must have an autonomous secretariat and its own team of expert advisors.
Does anyone really think it is okay, for example, that the GCC's chief legal advisor over the past several years, Qoriniasi Bale, happens to be the Attorney-General?
The potential for conflicts of interest in this arrangement was amply demonstrated in the scandal over Ratu Jope Seniloli's early release from prison in 2004 and simultaneous retirement as Vice President.
In the modern age, any credible leadership body must have its own, independent advisors.
The GCC will shortly be housed in a $20-million waterfront property, and yet it continues to share a lawyer with the Government.
It must have its own lawyer, independent of the Government or anyone else along with an accountant, a political analyst and other relevant experts as well.
The CCF believes the GCC is a vital institution in Fiji's national development. It represents the link between tradition and modernity a meeting place for our indigenous heritage and multi-cultural aspirations.
The GCC can and should be a place where traditional leaders come together to protect and develop the best traditions of their people, while being mindful of the needs of all communities.
Given Fiji's racialised politics, however, there is an ever-present danger that the GCC will be drawn into election campaigning or political debate in support of the dominant indigenous party of the day.
We must guard against this danger, or else the GCC will be weakened and discredited, and become increasingly irrelevant.
Reverend Akuila Yabaki is executive director of the Constitutional Citizens Forum.
Back to Top
+ Enlarge this image
Relaxed and ready for the fun in the annual FMF Games at the Post Fiji Stadium
Earlier Articles
