Opinion: A distinctly Fiji democracy: The reset our nation needs

Fifty six years after independence, Fiji is still wrestling with questions that should have been confronted in 1970.

Who are we as a nation? How do we rec­oncile our iTaukei foundations with equal citizenship? What place should our traditional institutions occupy in a modern democracy? And how do we ensure that consti­tutional power serves the people rather than those temporarily en­trusted with government?

These questions have followed us through independence, coups, con­stitutional upheavals and repeated promises of reconciliation. They will not disappear simply because we rewrite a preamble or rear­range the composition of a select committee.

A distinctly Fiji democracy may be the reset our nation requires.

But that reset must speak honest­ly to anxieties on all sides: to those who fear that indigenous recogni­tion may become a justification for permanent privilege, and to those who fear that equal citizenship may become a pretext for cultural displacement.

The principle of equal citizenship is indispensable. Fiji belongs to all its citizens. No one should feel like a guest in their own country. Eve­ry citizen deserves equal dignity, equal protection of the law and a government accountable to all.

Nothing in a distinctly Fiji de­mocracy should compromise those principles. But equal citizenship does not require us to pretend that history began yesterday. Nor does it require us to regard the Vanua as merely another interest group, or the Deed of Cession as a historical relic with no bearing on the legiti­macy of the modern State.

The 'Vanua' existed before co­lonial government. Its relation­ships, obligations, leadership and customary authority were not inventions of British administra­tion. Colonialism reorganised and regulated many of them, but it did not create the iTaukei relationship with their land and sea.

That relationship is more than a commercial transaction. It encom­passes ancestry, identity, kinship, spiritual continuity and obliga­tions to generations yet unborn.

Recognising itaukei foundations do not diminish anyone else's citi­zenship. It acknowledges that our constitutional order rests upon a history that predates the State it­self. Yet recognition must mean more than ceremonial respect or constitutional reassurance.

Consider customary land and re­sources. We rightly proclaim that iTaukei land ownership is pro­tected. But ownership and control are not necessarily the same. In­digenous landowners hold custom­ary title but remain constrained in determining how their land is administered, developed and used for economic advancement.

A people should remain perpetual spectators to development upon their ancestral land.

Disagreements over customary boundaries and resource entitle­ments are real. They require fair adjudication, clear procedures and accountable institutions. But disu­nity does not extinguish ownership, any more than disagreement between political parties extin­guishes democracy.

Complexity is a reason to strengthen governance, not an excuse to perpetuate the in­herited assumption, that the State always know better.

The same principle applies to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga. It's consti­tutional recognition should reflect its enduring responsibility to safe­guard the well-being, identity and collective interests of the 'Vanua'.

Its independence must not depend upon the goodwill of successive governments. But constitutional protection carries corresponding responsibilities. The BLV must ex­ercise its authority in service of the people, respecting the proprietary rights of 'mataqali' and other cus­tomary landowning communities.

Protecting the institutions of the Vanua must never become a sub­stitute for empowering the peo­ple of the 'Vanua'. Critics rightly warn that traditional institutions can become instruments of elite privilege, where leaders speak in the people's name while those they represent remain impoverished or unheard. That danger must be ac­knowledged, not dismissed.

But accountability does not mean subordinating customary institu­tions to a State that disregards indigenous history. It means en­suring that authority remains an­swerable to those it exists to serve.

This is equally relevant to chiefly succession. Tradition is not static. Leadership grounded in courage, wisdom, humility and service is not a rejection of tradition but an affirmation of its highest ideals.

Hereditary lineage may establish chiefly entitlement, but it does not automatically confer mana or command respect. A chief's stand­ing must ultimately be sustained through relationships, service and the confidence of the people. When succession becomes disconnected from those obligations, the institu­tion itself is weakened.

A mature Fiji democracy should be capable of examining such ques­tions without treating every dis­cussion of traditional leadership as an attack upon the 'Vanua'.

Yet indigenous recognition alone can­not resolve our constitutional diffi­culties. A distinctly Fiji democracy must be uncompromising about constitutional supremacy, the rule of law and accountability. We must confront the legacy of coups, sweeping immunity provisions, po­litical interference in public insti­tutions and the temptation to treat constitutional reform as an exercise in political convenience.

A Constitution should restrain power, not merely distribute it. It should protect institutional inde­pendence, guarantee meaningful public participation and provide effective remedies when rights are violated.

It must also look beyond electoral cycles. National develop­ment, education, environmental stewardship and the well-being of future generations require conti­nuity of purpose that no single gov­ernment can provide. Our troubled history demands equal honesty.

The coups of 1987 and 2000 in­flicted suffering, particularly upon lndo-Fijians who were targeted, displaced or made to feel insecure in their own country. Those experi­ences cannot be dismissed through appeals to indigenous tradition.

But the iTaukei experience also deserves examination. Those coups were justified in the name of indig­enous protection. Yet what did or­dinary iTaukei ultimately gain?

We inherited weakened institu­tions, fractured communities, dam­aged investor confidence and di­minished trust. Genuine anxieties over land, identity and political security were exploited, while the promised benefits often failed to reach those in whose name power was seized.

Fiji cannot move beyond compet­ing grievances without acknowl­edging both experiences.

The Deed of Cession remains part of our historical foundation. Inde­pendence did not erase that his­tory, but neither can its obligations be resolved simply by invoking documents written more than 150 years ago.

They demand honest examination within the realities of a modern, multiracial democracy. We cannot turn back the clock, nor should we. But neither should we mistake the passage of time for the resolution of history.

The answer is not to re­ject democracy, constitutional su­premacy or equal citizenship. It is to ask whether we have sufficient­, cultural diversity and shared as­pirations. As former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki reminded the Con­stitution Review Commission:

*Vax Populi Est Suprema Lex* - the voice of the people is the supreme law. That principle should guide our constitutional renewal.

Not the convenience of a coalition. Not the inherited assumptions of colonial administration. Certainly not the ambitions of individual leaders. And the voice of the peo­ple must mean all the people - not one community, political party or institution speaking on behalf of everyone else. Fifty-six years after independence, perhaps our great­est unfinished task is to develop the confidence to build a constitutional democracy authentically our own.

One that recognises our iTaukei foundations without diminishing anyone's citizenship.

One that respects tradition with­out placing it beyond accountabili­ty. One that protects rights without fearing their exercise.

And one that understands national unity not as the absence of differences, but as the capacity to govern those dif­ferences with justice, wisdom and mutual respect.

Independence gave us the right to govern ourselves. A distinctly Fiji democracy may finally give us the constitutional confidence to do so on our own terms.

By: Ro Naulu Mataitini

• Ro Naulu Mataitini is a member of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and a regular columnist on current affairs. The views expressed in the article are of the author alone and not of Fiji Sun and/or its employees.