Fijians get

the numbers

THE report on Fiji’s proposed new constitution has suggested a bicameral legislature, numerical

superiority for the Indigenous Fijians

and more power to the chiefs. “It is cer tainly not going to please everyone,” said The Fiji Times the day after the report was released, “but the committee, work ing within its term of reference, has pre sented a compromise package that it hopes will be acceptable to all the diffe rent communities.”

The proposal is for a 69-member com munally-elected House of Representa tives comprising of 37 Fijians, 27 Indi ans, four General Electors (or others) and one Rotuman. Thirty of the Fijian members are to be elected from the pro vinces and seven from the urban centres.

Elections are to be held every four years instead of the five-year life of Parliament practised before the military coup of 1987.

The report, by the Constitutional In quiry and Advisory Committee (CIAC), elevates Fijian chiefs to a position of power by making the Upper House the Senate of Chiefs. It is to have 34 mem bers, 24 of whom will be Fijian chiefs appointed by the President on the advice of the Great Council of Chiefs. The 10 other members will be appointed by the President, one of whom will be a Rotu man appointed on the advice of the Rotuma Island Council. The other nine members will be appointed by the Presi dent from the other racial communities with the President making the appoint ments according to his “own deliberate

judgment”.

In submissions received by the Consti tutional Inquiry and Advisory Commit tee, Fijians repeatedly expressed the fear that their already disadvantaged social and economic position and prospects would deteriorate further “unless consti tutional changes were made and affirma tive actions were taken to redress the situation in their favour”.

“Indians were generally united in their view that the fear expressed by the Fi jians that they would be dominated by them in the future was groundless,” said the constitutional report. They argued that the present social and economic problems of the Fijians resulted from the

development policies implemented by

the Alliance Party which ruled Fiji from independence to 1987. Most Indian sub missions argued against increasing Fijian membership in parliament as being the solution to Fijian problems. They say the

remedy could be found in raising the Fijian level of motivation, individual atti tude and dedication “to the improve ment in their education, commercial en trepreneurship, and in engaging them selves in productive activities”.

Overall, Indians called for equality through the “urgent need to reach con census on a new constitution based on democratic ideals of liberty, personal freedom and equality”. The Indian view was supported by the National Federa tion Party-Labour Coalition which urged the return to pre-coup constitution. This

was totally rejected by the Fijian

Nationalist Party whose leader Sakeasi Butadroka had in the past called for the expulsion of Indians from Fiji. The par ty submitted an eight-point proposal that it wanted to be part of the new constitu tion. These include giving the indige nous Fijians 75 per cent control of Par liament.

The report is a watered down version of the draft constitution released by Cabinet early this year. Changes include the proposal for a bicameral system in stead of a single chamber parliament proposed by the draft. The report also spoke against the Commander of the Fiji Military Forces being an automatic Mem ber of Parliament and becoming Minister responsible for security. The committee believes “that for proper accountability between legislative and executive arms of government, the ministerial and execu tive responsibilities of government should not be fused in one person.”

Many saw the draft constitution as giv ing too much power to the army, and

encouraging religious bias. The Septem

ber report notes that many were uncom fortable with reference to Christianity in the preamble and section one of the draft. It proposes then that Fiji should be a sovereign democratic republic, omit ting the word “Christianity”. Says the re port; “Recognition should be given to the historical role of Christianity but reli gious freedom and worship should be guaranteed to people of all faiths.” Also of comfort to many was the rejection of any power given the Minister for Im migration to cancel the citizenship of a person, it is suggested instead that citizenship should only be revoked by a two-thirds vote in parliament.

Generally, the report won the support of the Fijians and failed to have that of the Indians. The Fiji Times sums it up by saying the Fijians, “will accept nothing short of paramountcy in any political sys tem. The leaders of the Indian commun ity should take a hard, serious look at the committee’s proposals before reject ing them outright.” In Fiji, the question is: Are the Indians willing to do that? □