The worst fears of the minorities that their principal rights under the 2013 Constitution would be terminated or tampered with in the new draft of a supreme law recommended by the Constitution Review Commission appear to have been misplaced. To a point.
The common and equal citizenry – equal rights and equal opportunities for all irrespective of ethnicity – has been preserved. Which means that Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum‘s lasting legacy will have been to permanently level the playing field in Fiji.
Fears that the secular state would be abolished in the draft also appear unfounded, despite initial reports that it would go. They don’t call it the secular state but the new draft requires the state to treat all religions equally. So the architects of the draft have specifically ignored the request for Fiji to be a Christian state.
The downside is that the common identity – everyone Fijian, that is one of the three common and equal citizenry provisions of the 2013 Constitution – hasn’t been set in stone. We’re to all be called “Fijian” for the time being while national consultations take place on whether the English word should be reserved for the iTaukei. Which is a definite setback and will, in itself, be causing a great deal of disquiet.
So while the draft constitution isn’t as bad as many of us might have feared, it isn’t as watertight in protecting the rights of the minorities as the 2013 document. Which means that for many people, it isn’t an advance at all.
But by far the most grave cause for concern is that these are just recommendations. They are not binding on the government and they can just as easily reject them and embrace what we all really feared – a stronger ethno-nationalist agenda that we already know the two iTaukei dominated parties in the Coalition favour – the People’s Alliance and SODELPA.
How do we know that? Because both parties made submissions to the Supreme Court last year calling for a return to the race-based 1997 Constitution before the Supreme Court rejected that proposition outright and declared the 2013 Constitution the legitimate supreme law until it is altered by a two-thirds vote in the parliament and a 51 per cent vote in a referendum of all voters.
Make no mistake, Fiji. Until the proposed revised constitution goes to a vote in the parliament, we have no idea what will really be in it. Will the iTaukei nationalists defy the recommendation that the common and equal citizenry be retained and try to push through a return to indigenous supremacy? Will they defy the recommendation that all religions must be treated equally and give in to the demands for a Christian state?
All of this is yet to be decided. And until it is, the minorities need to keep up the pressure for the retention of their most basic rights. And especially, join hands with those throughout the community who oppose pushing any vote through the parliament followed by a snap referendum to deliver a new constitution by Christmas.
That’s what the People’s Alliance, at least, wants and it must be rejected in the strongest possible terms. (See our previous articles on this in recent days).
________________________
Click the link below to the report by the Constitution Review Commission.
The actual Draft Constitution begins at page 97
Much more analysis to come.
And in the meantime, a preliminary response to the Report from the Centre for Democracy and Dialogue – the independent think-tank formerly known as Dialogue Fiji.
My opinion is that leaving the common identity open means it is left to change according to the majority of the population’s wishes over time as the make up of the population changes.
I think this is not OK at all. This does not give an inclusive message. It gives a message of “majority rules.”
The percentage of different racial/cultural groups that make up a country at any one time should be irrelevant. Citizens are born in that country full stop.
Dear Rabuka,
Please liaise with the ever-so-popular Indian High Commissioner to Fiji to organise immediate Indian citizenship and Indian passports for the roughly 30% of Fiji residents who are descendants of Girmitiyas — people brought here under a colonial indenture system, used and abused to toil on the land and help build the economy of your Viti.
While you’re at it, ensure that my fellow Fiji Indians are eligible to run for the PM’s office in India.
Surely every human on this earth deserves to be eligible for national leadership in at least one country in the world, particularly if being “indigenous” to it matters as much as you so like to claim.
Then we can talk about amending the Fijian Constitution to exclude any ethnicity born into Fiji in any regard.
Don’t do a half-arse job — go on, go full circle if you still have the balls. After all, your highest academic qualification was awarded by an Indian institution, right?
While you’re at it, can you also liaise with your Vuvale partner Australia — home of CSR, which profited from Fiji’s colonial sugar industry and indentured labour — to pay for boarding and flights for immediate repatriation? Put my name on the list first.
The Aussies don’t exactly have a glorious history with their own Indigenous people and their own Stolen Generations, so tough luck getting funding for that proposal! But you never know. They might just say yes, so do kerekere from your close brother, the Australian High Commissioner.
I’m sure many would love to “go back” to an ancient civilisation where perhaps we can finally enjoy this magical sense of belonging that apparently comes with being indigenous. I’m ready to fly to my ancestral and spiritual land, provided it’s organised and paid for as described above.
Heck — I’ll even give up my Fiji citizenship to make you happy.
Let’s go!!
Probably a backward step in the evolution of “society”… What is there to go back to other than a complete lack of empathy on any level. Don’t forget your pottie and remember to swipe left while dodging the puddles and muck along the way!
Your Comment Literally and Metaphorically makes No Sense.
Please care to elaborate or clarify.
As I mentioned in the comment below, I was being sarcastic to highlight that Fiji Indians don’t even have any rights in India thanks to Colonization that was accepted by Fijians in 1800s. They let the Fiji Indians in when we only had boats not planes as common international travel. They took the risk that the boats may stop coming to take us back – to be fair WW1 was unknown to occur when Indenture started in 1879.
So the whole thing is quite complex- it’s not so simple as when racists say to go back when legally we can’t – there is no ‘Indian’ citizenship or rights so to speak.
So I was just kindly asking if the PM can organize an Alternative Citizenship before ostracizing us in HIS Constitution that GOD whispered in his EAR in 1987 –
A prophecy that came to our dear Military Commander after I was already born in a Fiji that was already an Independent Nation State (deemed Sovereign since 1970)and importantly, already HAD a Viable Constitution in place before the coup culture began in our beloved nation.
Yes , but Indians were never called Fijians 50 years ago. Fijian was once reserved for Itaukei people of Fiji origin. The correct reference would be to devise a name which has no historical attachment but still collectively represents all Fiji nationals. They could call them Fijilanders or Fijilians all of whom are Fiji citizens . A total break from that which was once reserved for some seems logical.
You cannot definitively say that every Fiji national wants to be recognized as a Fijian. That is because some prefer not to be named after those which others once were. If you had a Fiji passport 50 yrs ago you were a Fiji citizen not a Fijian. In 2026 you are still no different by ethnicity to what you were 50 years ago . Ethnic identity doesnt make a country more devisive neither is tolerance and inclusivity affirmed by a collective identity. A fiji Indian is a fiji indian. An Itaukei is a fijian native. A Euro Fijian is …ad so on
Its not racist to suggest this and you should be proud of your ethnicity.
If you fail to recognize and sanctify that term now it will be regained at some stage in the future when I _taukei grow to represent more than 80% of the population in another 20years and the constitution is changed again to reflect it…wait and see
That’s all fine and dandy- my argument is that I am a 5th gen Fiji Indian and I want the OPTION to be the PM of Fiji in the future.
If not me, then my kids or their kids. Let’s keep those options aye, missing my point.
you sound like poor PM material..Best get your Indian passport seeing as your patriotism seems to favor your ethnic mother land. lol..Not being racist but personally I dont believe an Indian will ever be PM of Fiji again in this lifetime ！ I-Taukei are expected to grow to 80% of the population by 2030 so your prospects look slim at best.
Clearly you do not understand satire and sarcasm of my original post & name.
Hypothetically speaking, if one day the iTaukei population of Fiji decline and the majority is another race/culture, the proposed draft constitution leave it open to change the identity of people living in Fiji to whoever is the majority at the time.
Ironically, this could be any race in the future. Could one day people living in Fiji be called “Chinese,” if this is the consensus?
The identity needs to be set in stone and not open to change with population change. People also need to to understand the difference between cultural identity and(which is what people identify with and want to be known to each other as) and citizenship (where their citizen and passport rights belong).
It’s clear that the colonizers coined the moniker “Fijian” on their first arrival less than 200 years ago. A flash in the pan time span in historical context.
Can anyone please tell us what did the natives call themselves in the years before the arrival of British colonizers? We know the colonizers brought gifts of rum and trinkets to kar over the entire dominion and invented the gcc and all that jazz.
Before all the British treachery, fake gems and the magic of wai ni vei vaka mateni taki and unconditional surrender to white fellas, what do the natives call themselves?
Not Fijian. Not Fiji islanders. Not itaukei? Not Kaiviti? Help.
the core of mankind is not manifested in a moniker or name. It is an existence and that , in its self is enough to make all the flora and fauna around man recognize that there is some ONE not something that sits at the top of the food chain. For it is man, be it black, green, grey , yellow or snow white that whispers in the ear of nature….” I am mankind and I am here…”
Mankind has the ability, potential and above all the right to determine his outcome in this world.
note to Ai : Don’t ever underestimate mankind, Do so at your peril..
The ONE question remains unanswered.
Question: What did the viti indeginous people call themselves before colonialism?
Bakola? Kaicolo? KC?
Jibberish about Ai and equally empty contention of “I am mankind and I am here…” could be blown out of the water with simple logic: there are several current countries whose civilizations, existences, with historical going back thousands and thousands of years.
That is enough to demonstrate we all descendent of ancient civilizations.
Therefore, native “Fijians”are newbies themselves and do not have nor should claim cannot claim to be stand-alone native people.
The Lapita people were here first. Encyclopedia Britannica says: Genetic and archaeological evidence shows they originated from Taiwan and Southeast Asia, moving through the Bismarck Archipelago and mixing with local Papuan populations over time. End quote.
I think the word you are looking for is “ethnicity” and no, I don’t think for a moment that it would ever be possible for the people of Fiji to be referred to as “Chinese”. Probability of Americans being called Spaniards in 50 years?…Won’t happen.
Excuse the partial pun but the world has “awoken” from the wokeness that has permeated the fabric of mainstream western society. Countries are beginning to retrench and retake their sovereignty and that means aligning their views with their deep cultural heritage , regaining control of how their economic, social and cultural future is shaped.
I could never imagine a Pacific union nor could I forsee a generic Asian grouping for the purpose of collective bargaining. The EU model is failing as we speak. Poland is sticking the middle finger up at Ursula VDL and her bureaucratic balloon men. This is just one example a country that will not take a “quota” directive to fill a back pocket in their budget.
If people wish to be a part of a country they must buy into it fully. Integrate or re migrate elsewhere..Respect local culture or secularize on the open seas ..away from the norms of those places. That is what makes all the places in this world unique in their own right!
Won’t happen because the constitution of other countries doesn’t leave it “open” to be changed by consensus over history as demographics change. Fiji’s needs to have its constitution tight, too, so that unintended silly consequences aren’t possible.
I don’t mind being called a “Fiji Islander”, along with everyone else. I also have no issue whatsoever with iTaukei retaining their indigenous identity, culture, land rights and historical name.
My condition is simple: equal citizenship must mean equal political rights.
If I am a Fiji citizen, I should have the same democratic right as every other citizen to be elected to Parliament and, if I command the required parliamentary support, to become Prime Minister. Same for my descendants. Ethnicity should neither qualify nor disqualify anyone.
Call me Fiji Indian, Fiji Islander, whatever. Call the indigenous people iTaukei or Fijian if that is what they want. I don’t care about the label nearly as much as I care about the rights attached to citizenship.
And telling fifth-generation Fiji Indians to “integrate or re-migrate” completely misses the point. We are already home.
Indigenous identity and equal democratic citizenship can coexist. One does not require taking anything away from the other.
That’s my condition for reverting the current national use of “Fijian” to its historical use for the iTaukei.
Perhaps you misunderstood me on a few key notes. I wasn’t for a moment suggesting that “Fiji Indians” migrate or re migrate. My comment was a broad generalization of the trends of current day mass migration (legal and illegal) in many parts of the world (not Fiji) where the immigrants fail to assimilate or integrate on any level. I think this has some merit in the FJ context with secular state recognition. In the UK it is already past the point of return and the illegal immigrant situation has spiraled out of control however it cold have been much much worse had they enabled a secular state of affairs where these communities were able to fester and grow largely unchecked. Fortunately if there is one thing Fj does well it is prevent anyone from entering on a whim.
To your other point , I’m a little confused as to what you mean by equal rights when it comes to representation. I don’t think anyone is preventing anyone from running as an MP it’s just the alliances are quite polarized beneath the veneer. People will conveniently work with one another if it means the majority of that group get to set the tone. Those making up the numbers are not necessarily eating the crumbs but they don’t really get to play king maker either as is the case in a lot of other democracies.
NZ is a good example with NZ First/Winston Peters. If your party fails to command respect of the majorities then it doesn’t matter what happens in a coalition as they are one vote away from the next coalition partner. Stale policies will sooner than later show up at the ballot box. There is potential for a huge swing in voting sentiment in the race to make up a majority. However getting in bed with old faces doesn’t excite the public much. Just about every corner of the electoral map is tainted with at least one scandal by party member in the past 40 years! That’s how long some of those faces have been around.
It’s been a while since Fj had genuinely decent ppl running for office and embedded in the ranks of Upper House. There once was a time where integrity and the rule of law was respected and it’s a shame that it always seems to fall apart just as it’s getting better!
MP is not the same as PM.
I think this is where we are talking past each other. I know nobody is currently stopping a Fiji Indian from running for Parliament. That wasn’t my point. Being allowed to become an MP and being accepted as having an equal right to lead the country are two very different things.
Under our present Constitution, the Prime Minister must first be an MP and ultimately must command the necessary support in Parliament. My point is that ethnicity should not place an additional ceiling above that. If one day a Fiji Indian, Rotuman, Chinese Fijian or anyone else who is a Fiji citizen earns enough democratic and parliamentary support to become PM, their ethnicity alone should not disqualify them.
Mother Teresa is an interesting example of the principle I mean. She was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu on 26 August 1910 in Üsküp in the Ottoman Empire — present-day Skopje, North Macedonia — to an Albanian family. She wasn’t born in India and wasn’t ethnically Indian. At 18 she left home in 1928 to join the Sisters of Loreto in Ireland, an order with missions in India. Six weeks later she travelled to India, arriving in Calcutta in January 1929, initially to teach. She would spend most of the rest of her life there, eventually becoming an Indian citizen and founding the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta.
And look at what happened. This Albanian-born woman became so closely identified with India that the world knew her as Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her humanitarian work, much of it among India’s poorest people.
That is really the point I’m making. Imagine, hypothetically, that someone like Mother Teresa had wanted to enter politics. Her Albanian blood or Balkan birthplace did not make her less of an Indian citizen. People of any ethnicity in India were free to admire her, support her or reject her. Citizenship gave her membership of the nation; ethnicity did not dictate who was permitted to support her.
Of course Mother Teresa never sought political office, so I’m not claiming Indians would have elected her Prime Minister. I’m saying something much simpler: it is entirely possible for someone of a minority or foreign ethnic origin to become so embraced by a country that people across ethnic lines identify with and support them. Whether that person could actually command enough democratic support to lead the country should be for the people and the political process to decide — not predetermined by their ancestry.
I have no problem whatsoever with indigenous identity, culture or rights being protected. But indigenous identity and equal citizenship are not mutually exclusive. And to me, equal citizenship means there shouldn’t be an ethnic ceiling on the highest political office.
Lastly, I really appreciate and agree with the substance of your this/recent comment above. Sorry, I get traumatized anytime I hear to move out of Fiji in any seemingly offhand remark whether actual or perceived. Have a great rest of the week 🙂
You miss one key point . Governing as a minority while having authority over the majority is not palatable in almost all cases. I cannot think of an example besides the recent relay baton change in the UK where a leader of government is anyone other than the majority of ethnicity across that demographic. Mother Teresa is not a good example as religious leaders don’t hold office neither do they make decisions that determine the outcomes of peoples lives. They are simply admired for their selflessness.
Politicians are an inferior breed and have the inverse relationship with the public. They thrive by playing off the public sentiment. No leader is successful on his or her own. Those that surround themselves with capable people survive. Those that don’t fall by the wayside. If your base moves with you in real time then all the better. Alienate them and you are toast (burnt variety). You don’t need to be good at everything but you do need to be brilliant at one thing to be a successful government. All the most successful leaders in history had one brilliant member on the team carrying the can…nothing expected in return…just smart people.
Narube and his team seem to have their heads screwed on and could make a credible coalition partner for any one seeking to make up the numbers. You need smart people or you will sink like lead in this day and age in politics. I’m not sure what the future holds for Fj but I know there are a lot of smart people that can make this work if they put the effort in and stay the course. As we all know there are a lot of dumb people that love to spoil it all. The key is how to bring smart and dumb people together to ensure the dumb ones don’t stick their pie fingers in the jar while the smart ones are moving things forward. Achieve that and Fj will win!!!!