electoral system

Clarifications on Fiji’s electoral system

Dear Sir, I refer to your May article on the Fiji General Elections headed “Electoral System Needs Urgent Review” which, while making a number of constructive proposals for electoral reform, also repeats a number of ill-founded alleg ations with regard to the Rolls prepared by this office for the purpose of the 1987 Fiji Gen eral Elections.

I had intended to write to you previously to point out how ill-founded such allegations were, but recent events in Fiji had precluded me from writing to you until now. I trust that you will understand the reason for my delay.

You firstly state in your article with regard to the Rolls that such “are open for inspection for a limited period”. The Rolls referred to by you are those bearing the names of persons registered for the 1982 General Elections together with certain new names of fresh voters, in other words the Provisional Rolls which were published by my office on December 15, 1986. While the formal objec tion period allowed by law to such Rolls was seven days, by exercising my powers under the Electoral Regulations I ensured that these Rolls were effectively opened for inspection and objection for two months be fore closure.

The 1986 Provisional Rolls were distributed with maximum publicity to all parts of Fiji and their availability for inspection made known in all media in all languages, even to saturation point. Hence your reference in your article to “a limited” period for inspection of such Rolls is subject to qualification as there was very ample time for inspection of the Rolls by those interested in inspecting them, and very ample time for any alleged errors in such to be pointed out prior to the elec tions.

Your article continued by

referring to a “rude shock” for “quite a number of people who had voted in the 1982 election . . . when they turned up at the polling station to cast their votes”. The “rude shock” alleged by you is obviously that not all the eligible names on the old 1982 Rolls were transferred to the “new” 1986 Rolls.

This was an allegation made during election time by a num ber of Parties and individuals.

The allegation that 1982 names had not been transferred to the 1986 Preliminary Provisional Rolls and the 1987 Final Rolls was entirely disproved in regard to virtually all cases put for ward.

There were a small number of errors in cases where, be tween the time of publication of the 1986 Preliminary Provision al Rolls and the publication of the 1987 Final Rolls, names had been deleted in the Revis ion Exercise carried out by Elections Office to eliminate names of deceased and dupli cated persons. However, such errors, which were very few, had occurred in relation to “namesakes” and in relation to revisions for deaths and duplications proposals for which had been extensively published months before the elections, which proposed revision had not been re sponded to.

Apart from such cases, there was no proven instance in which the name of any eligible voter appearing upon the 1982 Rolls had not been carried forward to the 1986 Prelimary Provisional Rolls and the 1987 Final Rolls nor, despite my inviting protesting Parties to supply me with lists of such, have lists ever been supplied.

Your article further proceeds to allege that some voters regis tered in 1982 had been “shifted to another polling station” so that they missed out on voting.

This allegation is completely ill-founded. Many such alleg ations were made and investi gated by this office.

It was found that in no single case where a voter allegedly had voted at a particular polling station in 1982, and had not allegedly been “shifted” to an other polling station in 1987, was the allegation correct. In fact, not a single instance was demonstrated of a voter com plaining on the above ground correctly recalling where he voted in 1982.

The overall situation was sim ply that all voters registered in 1982 who continued to be eligible to vote in the 1987 General Elections continued to be registered at the polling station at which they had been registered in 1982, unless they

Counting votes after the last Fiji elections.

had applied for transfer to an other polling station.

No 1982 voter was shifted to a new polling station against his will in the 1987 election.

Your article refers to the “long polling period as the main cause for the skirmishes which married this year’s election”.

The polling period was identical to that in all of Fiji’s elections since Independence and the 1987 election period could not have been shortened without devising completely fresh methods of polling in the outer islands where there are no airstrips and where helicopters cannot adequately accommo date bulky voting materials and carry officials.

The polling period could not also have been shortened with out creation of many new poll ing stations, creation of the sufficient number of which was not within the ability of the electoral authorities in the time available.

You also referred to the “drawn out campaign” prior to the election. The campaign was drawn out because the Rolls had never been revised since the 1982 election and 4 months delay was the inevitable con sequence if the Rolls were to be placed in reasonable order be fore the election.

You finally refer to the appearance of political advertisements in the daily newspapers during the elec tions. I would point out that the banning of such would under Fiji’s present laws pose legal difficulties, although obviously the undesirability of such advertising is clear.

I trust that the above suf ficiently clarifies allegations in your otherwise constructive article which reflect upon, or are capable of reflecting upon, my office’s preparation and supervision of the 1987 elec tions.