Editorial: One name matters

The question of what we are called as a nation has once again returned to public debate, drawing strong and mixed reactions across the country.

While some see it as a simple issue of labels, others view it as something far more serious: touching on belonging, equality, and the future of national unity.

At the centre of the discussion is the term “Fijian” and whether it should apply to all citizens or be reserved for iTaukei as a marker of indigenous identity.

This is not a new issue. It has appeared repeatedly over many years, especially during periods of political change and constitutional review.

In the past, “Fijian” was widely used internationally to describe all citizens of Fiji.

However, within the country, its meaning has shifted at different times, reflecting efforts to recognise and protect indigenous identity.

More recently, discussions on building a shared civic identity have brought the issue back into focus.

Public opinion remains divided. Some believe that anyone born in Fiji or holding citizenship should be called Fijian, and see any exclusion as unfair.

Others argue that the term carries a specific cultural and historical meaning for iTaukei that should not be diluted.

Both views reflect real concerns. For many, this is not only about a name, but about recognition, history, and respect.

A modern nation must find a careful balance. Citizenship is the basis of equal nationhood. It ensures that all citizens are treated equally under the law and feel they belong to the same country.

At the same time, indigenous identity is rooted in land, tradition, and history, and must be respected and protected.

Institutions such as the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) remain an important part of this cultural framework. Their role highlights the continuing importance of indigenous identity within the national structure.

The challenge for Fiji is not to replace one identity with another, but to ensure that one does not weaken the other.

A shared national identity must be inclusive in principle and respectful in practice. It should allow all citizens to feel equally Fijian by nationality, while also recognising the distinct status of iTaukei as the indigenous people of Fiji.

This debate needs to be handled with care. If reduced to slogans, it risks deepening division. If ignored, it risks leaving important concerns unresolved.

Ultimately, this is not only about what we are called. It is about how the nation defines fairness, belonging, and unity for the future.

A national identity must do more than describe a people. It must hold them together.