My recommendations on ways forward? Government needs to know if it is following a path towards 2014 that is acceptable to the majority in Fiji. Until now and, from what I’ve seen and heard, until 2014, there is no plan to have a national referendum on the overall acceptability of the roadmap although, of course, there will be consultative dialogues which are not guite the same thing. The pro-lobby would have us believe that nearly 70% of the population agrees, the anti-lobby like to think that around 70% disagree. Neither group is basing their figures on anything other than wishful thinking, or ‘research’ that can be discredited at the drop of a hat.
Therefore I feel that a national referendum should be the first step. Peter Thompson could ask the UN to make up a team of observers from a variety of nations whose political situations could, either presently or in the recent past, be compared with Fiji in a variety of ways. Turkey, Argentina, South Africa, Sri Lanka spring to mind. That might go some way to giving the team of observers (and therefore the referendum result) some credibility in the eyes of the public.
Once the result is known, both the pro- and anti- camps will hopefully accept the verdict.
Assuming the majority believe that the Roadmap has merit (since its clauses are generally reasonable, with one or two notable exceptions), then the next step could be for the interim military government to reaffirm its stance taken in 2007, that none in the present government (nor anyone who has served on it between 2007 and 2014) shall be permitted totake part in the next election.
Reaffirming its stance will go some way to allaying concerns that it has embarked on an irreversible militarization of government and civil service. To those who say that’s unfairly excluding some consummate politicians like Mr Chaudhry, I would say that those who did join the IG in 2007 were fully aware of the military’s stance then. They should not now cry foul and try to be included on the ballot paper.5/14/2010 12:00:00 PM
COMMENTS
Referendum, my a### said...I don't see the need for a referendum on the roadmap. Why waste all that money just to learn what we already know - that many indigenous Fijians still support the SDL agenda of positive discrimination for the majority and bugger the rest us. That's why we're living in a dictatorship, Ione. And much as it might pain you, many of us who are non indigenous would like to keep it that way. At least until we can be sure of a genuine change of heart among the extremists. By all means, maintain dialogue. But a vote? No way. Thankfully for us, Frank feels the same way.
May 14, 2010 3:46:00 PM
The tyranny of the majority said...Because it's the anniversary of the first coup, it's a good time to remember that in 1987, the Indo Fijians were the majority in Fiji. Imagine the uproar if they'd benefited from a true democracy of one man one vote and introduced legislation that disadvantaged indigenous Fijians? Yet roll on 20 years and this was precisely what the Qarase Government tried to do when many Indians had fled and the Fijians were in the majority. I agree with the regime that anyone who doesn't stand for a multiracial Fiji should be barred from the political process. Sometimes there's a higher principle than even democracy - the right of all citizens to genuine equality and freedom from the tyranny of a misguided, manipulated majority. When everyone in Fiji acknowledges this, we can restore democracy. But not before.
May 14, 2010 6:59:00 PM
Staircase or Highway? said...I’m saddened that ‘Referendum’ feels that a referendum isn’t the right way to go since (to paraphrase) it might give a result that is not right… This shows a singular lack of regard for the ability of people to know what is morally right and wrong. Perhaps, as you suggest, indigenous Fijians might vote en masse to reject the Roadmap. I doubt that, but even if you’re right, how much long term success do you feel the Roadmap will have without the support of the proven majority of the population?
The lack of concrete evidence to show either Fiji citizens’ support, or otherwise, of the roadmap will imbue it with a certain lack of legitimacy. Should there be no referendum on something so fundamental, I would be sceptical that this government would chose to have a referendum on the proposed new constitution. Such a referendum could also be seen to be ‘getting the way of what is right’.The danger is not that the roadmap will be followed, or that a constitution could be passed into law – with or without a prior referendum. Both of those are a given.
I feel the biggest danger with the imposition of such fundamentally important legal documents is that the following decade, or longer, could be cluttered with court cases testing the legality of one constitution (or roadmap) clause after another. Bottom line being that while Fiji will hopefully remain a place that people want to come to for a holiday, it will probably remain a place that people steer clear of when it comes to substantial investment.
The pot of money in this country is limited. We rely on outside investment to stimulate the economy and we’re not going the right way about attracting that presently. In fact, very much to the contrary.
May 15, 2010 2:35:00 PM
Croz Walsh said... @ Staircase ... I see no way Government would accept a referendum on the Roadmap. It is non-negotiable and far too early. A referendum in 2012-13 on the new Constitution may be acceptable, or on its likely electoral clauses even earlier. My guess is that Government will see to it that the Constitution is not subject to endless litigation.
Your question seems to boil down to majority acceptance in Fiji and perceivedcredibility overseas. Previous constitutions and Development Plans (roughly the equivalent of the Roadmap) were not put to a referendum but they were endorsed by at least some representatives of the people. The problem here is that we have no parliament. 1) Do you, or other readers, see any scope for the Dialogue discussions to perform a "representative" role (and so remove the need for a referendum)? 2) If so, just how representative must they be? 3) How can they (or some other dialogue process) be made sufficiently representative? 4) Do any of you think Government will accept or welcome more inclusive dialogue as time goes by? 5) Will the overseas community and investors accept anything less than a full referendum as evidence of progress and stability?
May 15, 2010 4:22:00 PM
sara'ssista said...the only roadmap forward is to have full blockade of fiji by the international community. It is alarming but not surprising that this regime is now forging diplomatic links with Burma!!! for what purpose ??? The idea that aus, nz, eu, uk and us should accept this illegal regime 'normalising' its method of governing is farcical. we should be stepping up the pressure not relaxing it. Perhaps some aerial bombing or missiles as they don't have an air force, targeted of course.
May 16, 2010 2:05:00 AM
Twisted logic said...There's absolutely nothing wrong or untoward about Fiji having diplomatic relations with Burma or any other country, no matter how bad their human rights record. This is perfectly normal - how the wheels turn in international diplomacy - and implies no endorsement whatsoever of the Burmese generals. "Sara'ssista" is evidently a welded on supporter of the SDL with extreme views about everything. This is just another attempt to turn a normal event into something sinister for the purposes of propaganda. Ignore her. ( I'm assuming she's a woman because of the "ssista" part of her name )
May 16, 2010 9:29:00 PM
Croz Walsh said...@ sara'ssista. Your blockade comment is left despite its bombing sentence. Your second comment borders on the personal and insulting and contributes absolutely nothing to "The Way Forward" or the referendum question.
Judging from the general tone of all your comments of this blogsite, their main intent seems to be to prevent discussion by diverting others' attention to your attacks on Government.
May 16, 2010 11:56:00 PM
It's the Highway then... said... Crosbie,You write that “…I see no way Government would accept a referendum on the Roadmap. It is non-negotiable and far too early.”
A fundamental part of the Roadmap is the formulation and endorsement of the People’s Charter. Possibly the most fundamentally disturbing aspect of the Charter prior to 2009 is that it sought to enshrine itself permanently into the regulatory structure of the nation and, by so doing, set itself above the Constitution. The constitution was therefore scrapped, although the interim government did give other reasons for doing so at the time.
Regarding your queries:
1) The fact that the original constitution was scrapped unilaterally means that there is ample opportunity for litigation to be heard if the new constitution is imposed without a referendum. The present government will be entirely unable to legislate against that happening without continuing to undermining the credibility of the judiciary and jaundice the outcome of the free and fair elections that we have been promised in 2014.
Your questions 2) and 3) relate to not having a referendum, which I’ve already said I believe is crucially important. You say that previous constitutions were not put to a referendum but ‘were endorsed by at least some representatives of the people’. We all remember how much debate occurred after the 1997 constitution, despite there having been representatives of the people at various hearings. I’m sure that if there’s no referendum, the 2013 Constitution will go the same way as 97 in the long term.
4) I don’t think government will accept more inclusive dialogue as time goes by. We are more than half way towards when the new constitution has to be formulated in 2013 yet dialogue with the government has become less, not more, inclusive. One example being of course, the PER.
5) I feel that overseas investors will only look for stability, regardless of whether that happens via referendum or not. However for the reasons I’ve outlined above, I doubt that stability will be forthcoming.
May 17, 2010 12:21:00 PM
sara'ssista said...and to find 'way forward'...very orwellian to me...you presume to forget how this has
all occurred and who have been toting guns...this is not a peoples movement... this amilitary regime deciding for you and if should deign to disagree there are serious consequences...do you really think that the regime spends anytime consulting anyone of merit on these issues.? or more time trying to find and punish critics. Formulation and endorsement of so-called peoples charter will be imposed, not discussed and this regime is not big on public discussion unless you agree with their views...feel free to point out where this is not the case..
May 17, 2010 4:06:00 PM
Free Bird said.. Referendum or not, the fact remains that we are not out of the woods yet. And pardon me for my pessimism, but with all the BULLDOZING that's been going on here, I am doubtful that an election is in the offing- it'll take more than Frank and his inner circle to have Fiji truly ready for elections by 2014. I dread what this country will look like 4 years down the line. But then, who knows?
May 17, 2010 10:55:00 PM
Paved with Good Intentions said...Free Bird, we're already in the coercive abyss. There is no referendum proposed for the People’s Charter, which is of fundamental importance to the Roadmap and the new Constitution. For those who might not have read the Charter, I give a brief run down below of some of the provisions that induce a sense of vertigo:
Page 13, 4th paragraph
‘…the electoral system be removed from the Constitution and enacted as law so that it may be amended and reformed from time to time according to the will of the people.’
• What is the (future) Constitution, if not the highest law in the land? The implication here is that the wording of the Constitution will be inviolate. It should not be – it should be capable of being amended and reformed.
Page 15, several bullet points
Redefine and clarify the role of the RFMF (there is no longer any such organisation – it is the FMF) to ensure it is committed to defending the Constitution.
• Having scrapped the Constitution, the FMF (i.e., its commander) says it's now always going to defend the next one. What absolute guarantee would we have of that, save scrapping the FMF altogether?
Establish civic programmes to raise public awareness about the injustice and illegality of coups and issues of democracy and good governance.
• Presumably these civic programmes will be run by those who either carried out, or are sympathetic to the aims of, the 2006 coup.
Reform institutions and rehabilitate individuals and groups which are most prone to being implicated in coups such as ethno‑nationalists and religious fundamentalists
• Commanders of the FMF seem to be deliberately excluded.
Those found guilty of treason or coup related offences by a court of law be prohibited from contesting elections for life.
• Presumably then, we won’t see any of the military stand for election in 2014, since they had to enact a decree to ensure that the court would be unable to even try them, let alone find them guilty of treason.
Page 15, last paragraph
Realign the role of the RFMF to include Human Security:
Enhance the RFMF–community development partnership by strengthening its developmental role to ensure that its professional, technical and social potential is fully realised.
This to be achieved through the implementation of the National Youth Service, and in areas such as conservation of biodiversity, basic infrastructure rehabilitation and development, especially in the rural areas through an expanded Engineering Corps; and provision of security services.
• Surely it is not for the ‘R’FMF to set such a detailed role for itself in this way.
It should be there just to uphold the constitution. Don’t forget that those who drew up the Charter appear to want it to have the same legal standing as the Constitution – see below.
Page 41, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs
We, the people of Fiji commit
To support the Constitution *and* this the Peoples Charter as the foundation for rebuilding our Nation as one country, as one people.
To uphold the shared moral vision and values and principles articulated through the Constitution *and* in this the Peoples Charter
• Why do we need two supreme legal documents – the Constitution and the Charter? The values of one should be clearly spelt out in the other but for some reason the drafters of the Charter want it to be seen separately (albeit complimentary) to the Constitution.
My point is this. We either need a Constitution, OR a People’s Charter. And we definitely need a referendum on whichever is finally selected to represent the highest law in the land.
1 comment:
May 18, 2010 12:59:00 PM
Free Bird said...
Thank you for this 'Paved with Good Intentions' - but you're right- we're already in that pit
Post a Comment