Under the 1997 Constitution the President and Vice-President were appointed, or could be vetoed, by the Great Councl of Chiefs. In the ultra-nationalist Constitution of 1990 following the first Rabuka coup in 1987 both positions had to be filled by ethnic Fijians, and that meant Fijian chiefs. Although not specified in the 1997 Constitution, the ethnicity and traditional status of the people filling these positions was understood.
The new Constitution in 2012 will have to determine three things about the president: how he is appointed, his ethnicity and status, and his powers within the Constitution. There are at least two possible models. One provided by the United States where the President is elected by a very costly nation-wide election that means candidates must have the support of a political party, and where he or she has considerable powers, including the power to initiate legislation. The other model is provided by Commonwealth countries with a Governor-General. These people are nominated by government, after consultation with the parliamentary opposition, for approval by the Queen whom they nominally represent. For most purposes G-G's are useful "neutral" figureheads uniting a country, but on one occasion in Australia (when in 1975 the Gough Whitlam government was unseated) and one in Fiji (when in 1977 Ratu George Cakobau denied Siddiq Koya electoral victory and returned power to Ratu Mara) they exercised their ultimate authority to reverse or change political events. This is what Ratu Iloilo did in ruling the Bainimarama government legitimate, which was first accepted, and and then on appeal refuted, in the High Court last year.
What are your opinions on:
1. The appointment of the President: elected, nominated by government, by parliament, by a council of electors, or some other method?
2. The ethnicity of the President: Fijian, different from the Vice-President, no conditions?
3. The powers of the President: none, limited to emergencies, can initiate and/or block legislation, ultimate authority to remove a government in clearly defined circumstances?
4. The Vice-President's appointment, ethnicity and authority?
Please number and/or label your comments: 1/appointment, 2/ethnicity, 3/power, 4/VP, especialy when you are giving four opinion on more than one question in the same comments.
3 comments:
1234..all of which now apparently depend on the military's attitude at the time and the threat, very real, that they will step in and force their wishes on the government and people at the time if they deign to decide that they find the result or person unsuitable.
1/ Nominated by the Prime Minister and passed by 70% majority of elected parliment. This is the best way of achieving a balanced, well respected candidate. Would generally need concensus between the different parties. An elected President would just end up being another politician, put forward and campaigned by one of the political parties.
2/ Fijian (i.e. Fiji citizen of any race)
3/ Clearly defined circumstances to remove a government - usually limited to emergencies
4/ Don't need one.
Post a Comment