What is the appropriate size for Fiji’s new parliament? How many MPs can the country sustain? How many do we need to adequately represent us and provide the nucleus for an effective government? All these questions are currently being considered as the Government’s legal officers put the finishing touches to the new Draft Constitution that will be presented to the Constituent Assembly when it meets in the coming weeks.
It’s no secret that the Bainimarama Government wants a unicameral or one chamber parliament, with no upper house like the Senate that was a feature of the old system. There are two main reasons for this preference – the Government’s firm belief that the elected representatives of ordinary people should be the sole authority in the country and that taxpayers should not be obliged to support an unnecessarily bloated political class. The Prime Minister himself believes that there are already enough “fat cats” in the trade union movement bleeding ordinary wage earners dry to impose yet another layer up at Veiuto.
Yash Ghai’s Draft Constitution called for 71 members of parliament, with a National Peoples Assembly made up of unelected representatives that would advise the Government and choose the president. That, of course, has been junked, though important sections of the Ghai blueprint remain. The new Draft Constitution remains a closely guarded secret. But government sources confirm that it will be around half the size of the Ghai version. That implies a much more simple and straightforward document. The underlying premise is that future parliaments should be given more scope to enact laws and alter constitutional provisions, with accompanying referendums, to adapt to changing circumstances. Fiji’s new constitution should, in essence, be a living document rather than a set of rules etched forever in stone.
We already know that the RFMF regards a 71-member parliament as grossly inflated for a country the size of Fiji. The military’s submission to the Constitutional Commission proposed a single chamber of 46 members. The problem is that it’s an even number and split down the middle on a particular issue, the parliament could be deadlocked without an extra casting vote. So the one certainty at the moment seems to be that whatever the number chosen, it will be odd. 47, 51, 55 and so on. But what is an ideal parliament for a country of 890-thousand people, our guesstimated population until we hold another census? Opinions vary. Certainly, much depends on the size of the cabinet needed to run the country – the number of ministers required to head the various portfolios.
As we all know, the Bainimarama Government has made a virtue of its senior leaders holding multiple portfolios. The Prime Minister has nine, the Attorney General holds six. But this burden on certain individuals to do the heavy lifting of government is not expected to continue in the new parliament. Assuming it doesn’t, how many ministers and MPs do we need?
One person who knows a lot about these things is the Australian academic, Professor Richard Herr – an expert on parliamentary practice who’s Director of the Centre for International and Regional Affairs at the University of Fiji. He argues that Fiji will probably need a cabinet of between 18 to 20 members to govern effectively. And he says that on that basis, ideally the new parliament would need to be around four times that size – between 70 and 80 – to have an adequate “gene pool” or enough suitable MPs from which to choose that cabinet. “It’s critical to have an executive big enough to do the job. You need a large enough pool of talent among MPs to stack that ministry and sufficient backbenchers to keep the front bench honest and transparent”, Professor Herr says.
Yash Ghai’s Commission appears to have had the same view, judging from its recommendation of 71 seats, the same as the old parliament. Yet the mood in Government is for a much smaller number – perhaps in the mid fifties -so that more of the national pie is allocated to development needs and service delivery rather than the salaries of MPs. There’s a view that whatever some experts say, most Fijians would support the notion of a compact parliament and a similarly compact government delivering more for less. The old formula of 71 seats – this school of thought goes – reflected the fact that seats were reserved based on ethnicity. But a lot fewer will be needed when the new non-racial paradigm based on one person, one vote, one value comes into effect with the 2014 election.
Which of these schools of thought is correct? Both undoubtedly have their merits. But surely it’s worth doing a comparative examination with other countries to see where Fiji would sit with both 71 seats – as recommended by Yash Ghai -and the 55 or so said to be the favoured Government position.
With 71 seats, Fiji would have one MP for every 12,500 people. With 55 seats, there would be one MP for every 16,100 people. What do other countries have? Well, interestingly enough, even with 55 seats Fiji would still have a lot more MPs per head of population than a host of other countries. New Zealand, for instance, has one MP for every 36,600 people. Papua New Guinea has one MP for every 56,900 people. Australia has one lower house MP for every 150, 800 people or 100,091 if you include the Australian Senate.. All of which suggests that less may well be more if you’re a relatively small country like Fiji with a smaller tax base and host of competing demands for the tax dollar. Why should Fiji have more MPs per head of population than its wealthier neighbours? Yes, we need enough to maintain an effective government. But Grubsheet will wager that most Fijians would rather see better services than a higher number of politicians.
That said, we’re strongly of the view that those MPs ought to be paid a lot better than the salaries traditionally offered to Fijian politicians in the past. We say this for two reasons; because better salaries will encourage a better class of MP in the first place and also provide less of a temptation for our elected representatives to succumb to corruption. We need an efficient parliament with enough educated, smart people to take the country forward. And we need to avoid spreading them too thinly so that they don’t do their jobs properly, don’t have enough time for their constituents and their families or enough solitude to think of better ways to serve us. It’s a fine balance but we have a chance now to get it right. As with many things, there’s certainly not much point in having had the kind of revolution we’ve had since 2006 if it just means more of the same.
This article has subsequently appeared on Pacific Scoop New Zealand
First and foremost we certainly dont need unelected legislators aka senate. The President should be empowered to sign into law, bills passed by the parliament, or seek amendment as the case may be, upon credible advice. As for the size of the parliament, we have witnessed that a comparatively smaller number of people have done what no other so called democratic govts have done, all in a span of a mere 6 yrs. We even had “ministers without portfolio” in the past, what a joke. What about “assistant minister in the PM’s office”? Isnt that another joke? There also was a portfolio called “minister for women’s affairs”. Arent women equal citizens?
Oh!!! help me God, there was a “minister for Fijian(now called iTaukei) affairs”. Why not a minister for Rotuman, Indian, Banaban and Mick’s Kai loma affairs?
Finally, Australia has a population of more than 20,000,000 and a 150 seat parliament excluding the senate. Go figure what Fiji really needs.
Graham
You say according to sources – I thought you are working closing with the regime and have direct access to them – so why the pretence – just say that this is what s being drafted – it also seems that Richard Herr, no great expert like others before him during Rabuka’s military days – are getting paid to help you and he regime draft the new Constitution – so cut the chase and spit out the truth – you will be respected more than his b….s…” source of yours
Fiji Scooped, you are not only impertinent but wrong. I have certainly not sighted the new Draft Constitution and – hand on heart – do not know precisely what is in it. I have faithfully relayed what tidbits I have picked up around the place. All governments operate on a “need to know” basis and the Fijian Government is no exception.
That said, I don’t feel constrained about initiating a general discussion about what needs to be considered about parliamentary and cabinet numbers when members of the Constituent Assembly eventually meet. It is they who will decide these matters.
Contrary to what you also assert, Professor Herr has no role whatsoever in formulating the Draft Constitution. Zip, zero, zilch. He was at home in Tasmania when I spoke to him yesterday morning to seek his views. So it is you, my friend, who is the B…sh…er and you are clearly motivated by your own partisan political stance.
I disagree with the notion that we need more people in cabinet than we have now. It is obvious that holding multiple portfolios is an effective way for a handful of people to govern a small country. It avoids the endless bickering that we had in previous cabinets and things get done in an integrated and cross cutting manner. Contrary to popular belief doing multiple ministerial jobs is not ‘heavy lifting’. It is easier because less time is wasted in fruitless discussions between ministers. Our PM is a good example: Holding 9 portfolios does not stop him from doing a lot of important overseas and local travel, in fact he spends more time travelling than governing. And as far as the size of the parliament is concerned I again believe that small is beautiful and efficient. We will have a presidential system where most of the power will rest with the president leaving a relatively small scope of work for elected parliamentarians. Why not restricting the number to 41 and the size of the cabinet to 5? This would be truly innovative, cost effective and in line with the positive experiences we have had in the last six years.
Mr Davis, it’s very good to see you back writing your column every week. My friends and I look forward to it as it helps us understand what the real issues are.
It was a pleasure to see you on my favourite newspaper the Fiji Sun when I went to get bread this morning.
Vinaka vakalevu, Fijian at Heart. Much appreciated.
Size does matter in politics but not in the simplistic way that some wish. You quote the figures of larger states to show how many people can be represented by one representative. The problem is that these larger states can enjoy “economies of scale”. If you looked at smaller states you will see that these economies are not so easily achievable.
In our neighbourhood, the Solomons have a parliament of 50 for 523,000 people or 1 MP for about every 10,500. This would give Fiji a parliament of 83 MPs. Samoa has a parliament of 49 for 194,000 or 1 MP for nearly 3every 4,000 persons. This would give Fiji a parliament of 218 MPs. The world oldest parliament in Iceland has 63 MPs for a population of 320,000 or 1 MP for every 5,080 people which in Fiji would equate to a parliament 170 MPs.
The size of a parliament depends on a number of considerations including the diversity of opinion amongst the people of a state; the parliamentary system used; as well as the recruitment into an executive (“the Government”) Herr mentions. It must never be forgotten that democracy actually requires politicians – politicians who are accountable to the people through democratic election.
If one does not trust the MPs, reducing their number will not reduce their capacity for mischief. It only concentrates more power into fewer hands. This makes transparency more difficult and corruption easier.
Hopefully the Constituent Assembly will more carefully at this issue than just how many sardines (voters) can be squeezed into a constituency!
Dear Graham
Thanks very much. Much appreciated. God bless Fiji
I agree with the ideas that the regime are proposing. It is crtical to use the draft as a guide to make something that fits Fiji.
If the AG has anything at all to do with public life, If compromised individuals such as Shameem and Gates have any part in the “New Fiji”,, it will all be for nothing.
All of the proposals discussed in this article make perfect sense. It will depend on who is the PM, AG and CJ that will determine if it is genuine or a SHAM.
Otherwise you will have new game – new rules- same players.
Immunity should be granted to the PM. A full and independent investigation need to examine the ensuing actions. The reason for the coup and the PM’s motivation is easy to ascertain. It may even be considered justifiable. The actions of the AG is another story all together. His crimes against the Fijian people and the administration of justice cannot be forgiven or ignored.
If the AG is excluded from public life in the future and he is called to account for his actions it will act as a potent deterrent to any future person in public life to give proper legal advice and not make the situation far worse than it needed to be.
So the game and the rules needed to be changed. Let’s see who is in the team.
@ Bewildered,
Oh boy….jeez.
Give a child a piece of crayon (cin cin crayoon) and he draws the world for mumma and pappa; with all the animals and the sky and the ocean and the forests.
And the joy this child brings to the parents, the kinddies and the communities. The hope and aspirations of all peoples, he presents on a single piece of paper.
Give a man a computer with giga bytes of information to fill the city of Suva and all you get is a moron.
Oh maan, hoo r deez peoplez….tch tch cin cin
…doh
I totally agree that an unelected upper house, like the previous Senate, is an abomination to democracy. However, there are very good arguments to have an elected upper house, especially if the upper house is elected using a different voting system to the lower house. This can create checks and balances and prevent one political party from being too powerful. Every voting system has its negatives as well as positives, and a party that can get into power using only one particular system may not even represent the majority of voters. With a single lower house, a party with a majority becomes very powerful and can change laws how they see fit. If there is an upper house elected using a different voting system, then if a party has a majority in both houses you can be very certain that this is the will of the voters and they do have mandate to make laws as they see fit. But if the ruling party does not have a majority in the upper house this means they will have to convince others that what they do is right and negotiate with others to pass laws.
I think both Vox Publius and Suez make very valid points. In terms of economies of scale, Fiji would be better likened to one of the Australian State governments, most of which (Tasmania excepted) serve larger populations than Fiji, than to the country of Australia. There need to be enough MPs from which to draw a competent and effective cabinet. Multiple portfolios may look efficient, but they can in fact cause great inefficiencies, with the minister spread too thin to effectively deal with any of their ministerial responsibilities. Also, as Professor Herr pointed out, one needs a “fail safe” number. Whether that should be four times as many as the minimum number, or three, might be argued about. But to pare the numbers to close to the minimum possible is actually very dangerous. It is a problem with which Professor Herr is well familiar. In a bid to freeze out the Greens, the Tasmanian government some years ago substantially reduced the number of Lower House (House of Assembly) seats to 25, and the Upper House (Legislative Council) to 15. The population of Tasmania is about 508,000 – you can do the math for Fiji. There have been frequent strong calls to increase the number of politicians again, since there are real problems with the issues mentioned above, having only 40 members. It is unlikely to happen because of the partisan nature of politics in a State that has twice returned a hung parliament in elections, and in which the big two parties are desperate to keep the smaller Greens party at bay.
In terms of whether to have only one, or two, Houses in parliament, it is not by accident that most of the democracies of the world have opted for the latter. When on occasion a very forceful leader takes control of the lower house, it can become almost a dictatorship. To have a House of Review to examine what that person is trying to ram through can become enormously important. When Jo Bjelke Peterson ran Queensland, he had sufficient power in both houses to have the upper house abolished. It has meant that whoever controls the lower house has open slather. The same has occurred in Australian Federal elections on occasion, as in the final term of the John Howard government. He took control of both houses, and true debate and evenhandedness were the casualties.
It is very obvious that there can be lazy and incompetent politicians elected in any system. Reducing the overall numbers may reduce their numbers overall, but won’t necessarily reduce the relative proportion of lazy and inept to competent and responsible. That is the responsibility of the voters.
On one issue I agree with nearly all who have written in. The idea of having appointed rather than elected people in either House is atrocious. It was the single biggest fault of Fiji’s old system, and the Ghai team betrayed every democratic principle to propose its perpetuation, even expansion, in the new scheme. However many politicians Fiji settles on having, in however many Houses, they must all be elected by the people, one person one vote. This has been the most powerful and commendable idea driving the Bainimarama government from Day 1.
“Bewildered” should call himself “confused”. Possibly also racially driven. PM is ok although he did the coup and continues to fulfill his vision through the use of civilians like AG. Presumably he remains unrepentant and determined to implement his vision. He is to be forgiven, although he is in the driving seat, but the AG who seems to be the chief mechanic and very much the ADC to PM should be brought to justice? The reasonoing seems to be that theitaukei front man is not very strong or bright but a decent man, manipulated by the evil Indian and European. I thought we were coming out of these racially based views but obviously not. Lesson Number 1 – the Itaukei leader actually knows what he is doing. Lesson Number 2 – you can’t admire PM for his courage and vision, and attack the Indo Number 2 for his evil and unprincipled stand and bad advice to the same PM you have just admired. After all his so called crimes against the Fijian people are all endorsed by the PM and Cabinet whose actions are “justifiable!.Lesson Number 3 – what has the poor old Chief Gates to do with the constitution and its drafting? He seems to have kept out of the whole debate? Any evidence of all this manipulation, drafting and planning behind the scenes? I doubt it. No smoking gun, so personal abuse is gutless as Edwards says?
Reduce parliament and put in qualified people. No more unqualified Ratus holding ministerial positions.
i fully agree with you Graham.
Yes Fiji needs much lesser than 71 (for the overall number) and Ministers to be paid a better wage so smart and capable people do form Cabinet and take the country forward.
I dont think cabinet, except for Prime Minister and his deputy , should come form parliment members.