Voices of the People: Rule of Law

UNPUBLISHED BY THE FIJI TIMES DUE TO LEGAL ISSUES.... (was supposed to run on 20th March, 2013 in my usual Off the Wall column)

This week’s Off the Wall continues to share a summary of the book, “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji”. In this six-part series we seen the results of the research conducted by the Institute for Research and Social Analysis of the Pacific Theological College into issues of leadership, decision-making and democracy. In part 4, participants of the research share their perception on the Rule of Law.

Participants and interviewees alike spoke about being subject to various sets of rules and laws in their day-to-day lives. In particular, there is recognition that two systems hold great sway in Fiji: customary rules and state law. However, customary rules are seen as being applicable mostly in the rural areas and villages rather than the urban areas. Customary rules are also seen as mainly affecting the iTaukei, and not Indo-Fijians. The majority of interviewees and participants feel there is a conflict between the two sets of rules, and that this is most acutely felt in relation to customary rules and human rights law (although not all feel that this conflict is irreconcilable).

Other issues giving rise to conflict include the tension between individual rights and group rights, and between rights and duties, responsibilities and obligations. While state law, including human rights law, is felt by most to be paramount, it was broadly agreed that there needs to be research done to:

1)      identify the various manifestations of customary rules in Fiji;

2)      decide how customary rules and state law should relate to each other (that is, either integrate customary rules into state law, or retain customary rules as a separate set of rules, but ensure that they are consonant with Fiji’s international human rights law obligations);  and

3)      realize that approach.

Opinions differed as to whether traditional leaders are still able to enforce customary rules effectively in their villages, or are losing their authority. To support the customary system of enforcement, a majority of iTaukei participants and interviewees want the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) to be reinstated, albeit with some reforms.

There is some concern about a possible lack of separation of powers in customary structures, where traditional leaders often act as investigators, prosecutors and judges in cases brought before them. If customary rules are to be taken seriously, then the structures supporting and implementing these rules should be similarly examined and strengthened.

Both participants and interviewees feel that there have been so many changes in state law (including the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution, the amendment of many pieces of legislation, and the introduction of numerous decrees, not to mention that a new constitution is currently being drafted and debated) that they are uncertain as to what laws pertain to them. As a result, many called for a concerted and wide-spread programme of education about law (in particular human rights law) to be developed and implemented as soon as possible.

Participants feel that Fiji should have a constitution, but generally did not specify whether they preferred the 1997 Constitution, or a new constitution. The majority of interviewees did not discuss this issue in any detail, but of those who did discuss it, the vast majority want the 1997 Constitution to be re-instated (or believe it has not been lawfully abrogated, and is therefore still in force). However, they are not averse to the 1997 Constitution being amended if this proves necessary, particularly those sections dealing with electoral matters.

In relation to the enforcement of state law, the police force was heavily criticized by both participants and interviewees; criticisms included: that the police were often late in attending crime scenes, or didn’t turn up at all; that the proportion of unresolved cases is very high; that the police are not properly trained and are under-resourced; and that corruption is rife amongst police personnel. There appears to be very little trust in the police, although some think that the police force is better now than before 2006. Finally, interviewees raised concerns about the militarization of the police in particular, and what they viewed as the military usurping the role of the police. It is clear that there needs to be a great deal of work done both to improve the performance of the police, and the perception of that institution.

Participants appear to have had very little personal experience with the Fijian court system, but the common view is that delays in dealing with cases are common. There is also a perception that the law does not apply equally to everyone, and that those with status and/or money are above the law, or receive preferential treatment from the courts. As for interviewees, a few think that the courts are doing a good job under difficult circumstances, but most expressed serious concerns, particularly in relation to the independence of the judiciary. It is felt that the independence of the judiciary is not being respected by the current government.

Closely connected to judicial independence is the separation of powers, which many interviewees feel is being undermined in the current set-up. In addition, it is felt that there are insufficient local lawyers included in the magistracy and the judiciary, and, that as a result, the courts lack a proper understanding of local context and culture, which is seen as important to achieving justice in any case before the court.

The role and function of the military was a matter for debate amongst interviewees, given its involvement (in one form or another) in all the coups that have taken place in Fiji: a few want the military to be abolished, but most feel that this is not feasible. As to the military’s role in protecting the state and the constitution, there was broad agreement that there needs to be an informed and in-depth debate on this issue, dealing particularly with such questions as on what grounds, if ever, the military could consider removing an elected government. The vast majority of interviewees want the military to return power to the people as soon as possible; an exit strategy is seen as being critical to this process, with most mooting some form of amnesty.

In relation to returning power to the people, the vast majority of participants and interviewees feel that installing a democratic system of government, along with the promotion and protection of human rights is the best way forward for Fiji. However, there was also the recognition that these are not going to be realized overnight in Fiji, but will take time to develop, and – vitally – must be tailored to Fiji’s specific circumstances.

Read more details of the findings of the research study in “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji,” which is available from the Pacific Theological College, Suva.

Next week: What the people think of the issue of Citizenship.

“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”

ENDS

Rev. James Bhagwan is currently a student of the Methodist Theological University’s International Graduate School of Theology in Seoul, South Korea. He is a member of the Institute of Research and Social Analysis’ Strategic Think-tank. Email: padrejames@gmail.com or visit http://thejournalofaspiritualwonderer.blogspot.com

Voices of the People - What People Think of Democracy in Fiji

Published in the Fiji Times' "Off the Wall with Padre James," 13th March 2013

This week we continue to examine the findings of the research book “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji,” published by the Pacific Theological College’s Institute for Research and Social Analysis.

Over the past two weeks we have looked at the findings of the research project on what the focus group discussion participants and interviewees thought of decision-making and leadership in Fiji. We now turn to a summary of what participants of the research study had to say on the issue of democracy.

Out of a total of 81 participants, 72 (89%) shared their views on different aspects of democracy in Fiji. A comparison between responses of participants in focus group discussions and interviewees shows some striking similarities, but also some differences. The major differences between their responses can mostly be ascribed to the different levels of formal education and status of the two groupings.

Most participants are representative of the majority of Fijians, with low to moderate incomes; while the majority of participants have been formally educated to primary school level, few have attended secondary school, and even fewer have undergone studies at tertiary level. In contrast, the interviewees represent a much smaller section of the social strata, with moderate to higher incomes, the majority having degrees from tertiary institutions and being in leading positions in Fijian society.

The majority of focus group participants know little about the origins, history and development of democracy, although a few participants in each group were familiar with some of the key elements of democracy, such as equality, human rights, the rule of law, and participation in decision-making through elections. Even so, focus group participants clearly view the current system in Fiji as undemocratic because the lawfully elected government was ousted through a coup in 2006, the Constitution abolished, and Fiji ruled since then by a military government, through the issuance of decrees. In addition, human rights have been violated and there were (and still are) restrictions in place with regard to the freedom of expression.

Given a choice of governance systems, the vast majority of participants prefer democracy for Fiji, and a substantial number of participants are - for a variety of reasons - opposed to or critical of the current government. It should be noted, however, that a small majority of participants expressed their appreciation for certain programmes, projects and policies introduced by the military government. Regardless, there is agreement between supporters and opponents alike that there is a need for reform of the electoral system, and the introduction of regulations for political parties and aspiring politicians.

Similar to focus group participants, the vast majority of interviewees expressed their support for democracy as their preferred model of governance, as well as reforms of the electoral system, and rejected in principle the idea of bringing about change through coups; they also rejected any sort of racially-based politics.

Most interviewees and participants affirmed the importance of the role of political parties in a democratic system, in particular their representation of the interests of citizens. They were, however, critical of their performance, with the accountability of political parties to citizens being a key issue. In addition, many called for the reform of political parties and the system of governance, so that these are grounded specifically in the cultural, religious and political realities of Fiji. Such reforms are seen as imperative, not only for strengthening citizens’ active participation in political affairs, but also for curbing the excesses of individualism. However, the quality of political participation depends on how citizens wish to participate in their systems of governance.

Taking into account the different views with regard to elections and political parties, the study’s key findings are:

(a) political parties have not performed well in the past;

(b) political parties are essential in any future democracy, but should be fundamentally reformed; and

(c) Fiji needs to search for a more appropriate form of representation.

Based on these findings, there seemed to be three clear proposals emerging from most focus groups and interviews for strengthening citizens’ participation.

·         Firstly, race must be removed from the electoral system, and political parties’ agenda;

·         secondly, citizens and leaders need to understand the purpose of elections and politics in general - hence the need for an inclusive civic education programme; and,

·         thirdly, the one-person-one-vote electoral system is the most appropriate system for Fiji.

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that Fiji (like most ‘fully’ democratic countries in the Western understanding) is still far from achieving the ideal of democracy, which is, by definition, the government of the whole people by the people equally represented. A major reason for this is that the underlying economic structures in the globalized capitalist economy prevent the exercise of democracy; thus, relying solely on voting every four or five years as a means of controlling economic, social and other policies is inadequate. Representation of the people through elections may be a necessary precondition for democracy, but a state can only be genuinely democratic when elections are reinforced by the enhanced participation of citizens at all levels of decision-making in all spheres of public life.

The research team therefore proposed that the liberal representative model of democracy needs to be challenged and complemented by approaches aiming at ‘deepening democracy’. In this view, democracy is not only a set of rules, procedures and institutional design, nor should it be reduced solely to competition amongst political parties; rather, it is a process through which citizens exercise ever deepening control over decisions which affect their lives, and as such, democracy is constantly under construction.

In the final analysis, full democratic citizenship is achieved not only through the exercise of basic political and civic rights, but also through social rights, which in turn may be realized through participatory processes and dialogue. Famous examples of this are the Porto Alegre experiment, and what became known as ‘forum politics’, which preceded the innovative activist-based movements of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s.

The focus of ‘deepening democracy’ is on creating new democratic arenas and spaces, and on participatory governance at the local level in particular. This approach is close to deliberative understandings of democracy, which shift the focus from a ‘voting-centric’ to a ‘talk-centric’ democracy, and to concepts of empowered participatory governance. As a result, it is argued that contestation by combative political parties is not the only possible democratic model; consensus-seeking through village or town meetings is another real option.

Read more details of findings of the research study in “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji,” which is available from the Pacific Theological College, Suva.

Next week: What the people think of the Rule of Law in Fiji.

“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”

ENDS

The Newsroom: “Doing the News Right”

Published in the Sunday Times, 3rd March, 2013

This week a new television series will air on FBCTV titled The Newsroom. The series is a powerful new drama created by Aaron Sorkin, who created the Golden Globe and Emmy award-winning series The West Wing.

Broadcast in the United States just last year, The Newsroom takes us behind-the-scenes of a nightly cable television-news program. The show centres on Will McAvoy, a former lawyer and prominent journalist who now anchors (host) a nightly television network news programme; his new executive producer, the newsroom staff and their boss..

The trailer for the series caught my eye when I was back in Fiji for vacation, featuring Will, played by Jeff Daniels, “losing it” during a question and answer session at a university. On my return to Korea and in my last few days of vacation I decided to watch an episode. I ended up watching the entire series.

The series begins in the aftermath of McAvoy’s meltdown, as head of the news network Charlie Skinner (Sam Waterston) appoints a new executive producer for the news programme, MacKenzie McHale, played by Emily Mortimer. Will is frustrated with how news has become a slave to advertising and ratings rather than the truth. MacKenzie, a seasoned journalist who has covered the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their boss Charlie, an old newshound himself agree with him one hundred percent. They commit themselves to “doing the news right” and are supported by the newsroom staff.

The series follows the team’s mission to do the news well in the face of corporate and commercial obstacles-not to mention their own personal entanglements (MacKenzie just happens to also be Will’s ex-girlfriend).

The series addresses the very serious issue of the struggle for journalistic integrity, getting the whole story, and running the right stories, in the face of a highly competitive media industry where the ratings determine content because ratings equals revenue.

Having worked in the media industry for more than two decades and been part of the first regular live-to-air news programme, the show resonated with because of the struggle of the character of Will McAvoy to change not only the way that the news is done but to ultimately change the way in which audience receives the news – not merely as entertainment or info-tainment but as information that will help them make important decisions about their lives and how they chose and hold their government accountable.

I also felt that there may be similarities between this fictitious group of journalists struggle with corporate interference and our own local journalists struggle to adapt to working in the context of the Media Decree.

I personally feel that the series should be required viewing for all journalism students, would be journalists and may be good television therapy for our hard working journalists in Fiji. The series lays out the challenge of getting not only the facts right but knowing the whole story first and giving all sides of the story by not only how it can be done but more importantly what happens when it is not done. It also provides a challenge to television news broadcasters and broadcasters in general to not just use presenters who can read the teleprompter or announcers who can introduce songs and read dedications but people who can conduct insightful interviews and talk about the issues that matter in people’s lives.

All that aside, I also enjoyed the series because it is also about people, team dynamics and relationships. Credit must go to the show’s creator Aaron Sorkin, is not only a screenwriter but also a playwright and producer whose works includes A Few Good Men, The American President, The West Wing, Sports Night, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Charlie Wilson's War, The Social Network (for which he won an Academy Award)  and Moneyball.

The Newsroom also has some great comedic moments that offset the drama. Co-star Oliva Munn, who plays the news programme’s highly intelligent and qualified but socially-challenged financial news reporter Sloan Sabbith, cut her teeth in television on Attack the Show! and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Also co-starring in this series is Dev Patel (of Slumdog Millionaire and Avatar: The Last Airbender) who plays a blog writer who provides research material for the news while constantly trying to convince the producers to run a story that Bigfoot exists.

The Newsroom airs March 5^th on FBCTV.

ENDS.

Rev. James Bhagwan has won awards in print, radio and television and is currently a Masters in Theology student in Seoul, South Korea. 

Voices of the People - What People Think about Leadership in Fiji

Published in the Fiji Times' "Off the Wall with Padre James" Wednesday 6th March, 2013 and in http://crosbiew.blogspot.kr/2013/03/crisis-of-leadership.html

This week we continue to examine the findings of the research book “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji,” published by the Pacific Theological College’s Institute for Research and Social Analysis.

Last week I shared the findings of the research project on what the focus group discussion participants and interviewees thought of decision-making in Fiji. Now we now explore the current state of leadership at different levels and in different spheres of society, from the family and the village to the national level, in churches, politics, business, and civil society etc

A political understanding of leadership sees leadership as a social relationship and a political process that is both socially and culturally embedded. Applying the concept of hybridity (as introduced last week in this column), the authors described and analyzed different types of leadership, and the on-going fusion of these leadership types in Fijian society today.

The report’s findings suggest that Fijian society and politics today are characterized by the co-existence and interaction of different types of leadership, in particular, traditional leadership in the form of the iTaukei chiefly system, and modern leadership in the spheres of state and civil society.

This has led to some confusion and inconsistencies in leadership, to such an extent that it is possible to speak of a leadership crisis in Fiji today; on the other hand, however, people are actively addressing the challenges posed by this leadership crisis in their everyday lives, and are engaging in processes of change.

Leadership structures in Fiji are complex and in constant change; as a result, people are confronted with the challenge of dealing with and negotiating different types of leadership, and the changes they are undergoing. The research team’s findings suggest that there is a leadership crisis in Fiji today, with some interviewees identifying this crisis as one of the main obstacles to democratic development in the country. On the other hand, the findings also led researchers to a (qualified) positive outlook with regard to the prospects for overcoming this leadership crisis, and hence the prospects for democratic development.

The study found that people are fully aware of the existence of different types of leadership, and of leaders with different sources of legitimacy, e.g. chiefs as hereditary traditional leaders, and politicians laying claim to rational-legal legitimacy on the basis of elections and other democratic procedures.

It also found that people in general do not have problems with the co-existence of different types of leadership, despite the acknowledgement of tensions between these types. There is some confusion due to inconsistencies in and the overlap between different leadership types due to ongoing changes; nevertheless, people find ways of making sense of what is going on, and actively engaging in processes of change.

This is not to say, of course, that everything is running smoothly, and without causing considerable stress. However, change is taking place (albeit incremental and slow), which is bringing about a fundamental transformation of leadership structures, and, flowing from that, society as a whole.

Participants and interviewees alike are in agreement that leadership in Fiji today is still predominantly male and hierarchical. However, hierarchical leadership styles are challenged, particularly by young people, be it at village level (chiefly leadership no longer remains unquestioned), or national level (previous democratically elected governments as well as the current regime come in for criticism). Views regarding the pace and extent of change differ; change is slower and less visible in rural areas than in semi-urban and urban areas.

Outlooks on the desirability of change differ too, with rural people in general being more patient, and the urban elite being more impatient. However, hardly anyone totally opposes changes to Fiji’s leadership structures; even traditional leaders and elders in Indo-Fijian rural communities agree on the necessity for change.

On the other hand, hardly anyone advocates a complete and revolutionary overthrow of current leadership structures; even progressives from the urban elite do not advocate a complete abolition of traditional iTaukei leadership. It seems that both ‘ordinary’ people and the elite are in agreement on their preference for gradual transformation.

Everyone agrees that the traditional iTaukei system of leadership is undergoing serious change. There is disagreement, however, as to whether this system needs explicit and direct reform, that is, political and perhaps also legal/juridical, intervention.

Some are confident that, in the course of change, the current problems will be overcome almost naturally, and a new structure will emerge. Others support active interference to implement reforms e.g. the election of chiefs; the development of criteria for chiefly leadership; a code of conduct for traditional leaders; training for chiefs in good governance; and/or formal clarification of the relationship between the traditional sphere of leadership and the modern political sphere (such as a prohibition on chiefs engaging in the formal political system).

A critical aspect of the debate about the reform of the traditional system is whether the GCC should be re-instated, substantially reformed, or abolished altogether. Substantial reform could include: reform of membership; reform of its rights and responsibilities (such as removing some of its formal political powers e.g. the right to elect the President); and/or shifting its focus to the preservation of iTaukei culture.

Given the centrality of the traditional leadership system in Fijian society and politics, any reforms in this sphere will inevitably have an impact on other societal spheres - civil society, relations between different races and religions, and not least, the political sphere in the narrow sense, including leadership structures of political parties, and accountability mechanisms for political leaders. The study found widespread agreement with regard to the deficiencies of the leaderships of previous democratically elected governments, and the need for improvements here. In other words, in general, people do not just want a return to the pre-2006 state of affairs, but long for substantial reform, which also includes reform of democratic political leadership.

The findings confirm that Fijians have an interest in organized, well-planned and comprehensive debates about what kind of leadership Fiji needs, not only at the national level in the political arena, but at all levels and in all societal spheres. The current public discussions about the need for constitutional reform could provide a good starting point, but these debates should not be confined to constitutional issues. Rather, they should be thought of as long-term endeavours. Effective and legitimate leadership cannot be installed overnight; in fact, it cannot be installed at all - it must emerge of its own accord in the context of societal and political debates, and this takes time.

If this leadership crisis is to be successfully addressed, it must be done in a comprehensive and incremental way. Based on their findings, the researchers propose the following points if this route is taken: firstly, to undertake leadership education - both in the sense of educating the leaders, and educating the public about what constitutes good leadership; secondly, to draft a code of conduct and a code of ethics for leaders; thirdly, to conduct targeted programmes for female and youth leaders; and finally, to reform party political leadership.

One should be aware, however, that both these and similar practical measures can only achieve so much. They have to be embedded in a more general and comprehensive transformation of leadership culture in all sectors of society - in churches and other religious institutions, academia, schools and families, as well as professional and civil society organizations, and political parties.

“Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji,” is co-authored by Volker Boege, Aisake Casimira, Manfred Ernst and Felicity Szesnat.

Next Week: What people think of Democracy in Fiji

“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”

ENDS

Discussing Democratic Development in Fiji

This interview was recorded on February 21st, 2013 - a day after the launch of the book: "Voices of the People - Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji." see other postings for more on the book.

Voices of the People: “What people think about decision-making in Fiji”

Published in the Fiji Times's "OFF THE WALL WITH PADRE JAMES"  on Wednesday 27th February, 2013

Last week I shared with you about the launch of the book, “Voices of the People,” which contained the results of a research project by the Pacific Theological College’s Institute for Research and Social Analysis on “Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji.”

According to the authors, the motivation for the research was the desire to avoid further upheaval, and to assist the Fijian people in their search for an appropriate and suitable form of governance. This research, aimed to carry out an extensive and impartial inquiry into governance issues.

Convinced of the importance of recognizing the views and wisdom of the people of Fiji in creating a form of governance that is appropriate and suited to Fiji’s historical cultural context, specific local political conditions, and aspirations of her people, the report is based on a systematic exploration and analysis of views of Fijians from all sectors of society.

Key to understanding the research is the concept of “Hybrid Political Orders”.

In post-colonial states, including Fiji, state institutions are not the only institutions which fulfil functions that, in the model Western state, are clearly state obligations. There are also locally-rooted social entities, such as extended families, clans, tribes, village communities, and traditional authorities (e.g. village elders, chiefs, healers, ‘big men’ and religious leaders), which determine the everyday social reality of large parts of the population.

As seen in Fiji, state institutions are to a certain extent ‘infiltrated’ and overwhelmed by local, customary non-state ‘informal’ institutions and social forces, which operate according to their own logic and rules. This has led to the departure of state institutions from the Western ideal type.

On the other hand, the imposition of state agencies has impacted on non-state local orders as well: local customary institutions are subject to deconstruction and re-formation as they engage with, and are incorporated into state structures and processes. As a result, they adopt an ambiguous position with regard to the state, appropriating state functions and ‘state talk’, whilst simultaneously continuing to pursue their own agenda.

As a result, governance is hybridized by the interactions between introduced liberal democratic state institutions and local customary non-state institutions. In hybrid political orders, diverse and competing authority structures, sets of rules, logics of order and claims to power co-exist, overlap, and interact; they combine elements both from introduced Western models of governance, and local indigenous traditions of governance and politics. Further influences are found in the forces of globalization and associated societal fragmentation.

In hybrid political orders, different types of legitimate authority - beyond the rational-legal authority legitimized by liberal democratic procedures - can be found, such as traditional and charismatic types of legitimacy. These co-exist, compete and interact with rational-legal legitimacy, leading to a hybridisation or fusion of legitimate authority.

This week we discuss the topic of Decision-making as shared in the 41 focus group discussions involving 330 participants and 82 in-depth interviews.

Decision-making in Fiji today is multi-faceted: the hybridity or fusion of the socio-political order in Fiji plays out in the duality of Fijian decision-making processes. Traditional structures and processes of decision-making co-exist with modern structures and processes. Moreover, these different types of decision-making do not only co-exist, but also interact and overlap.

This situation causes some confusion and stress, thus posing major challenges for all Fijians, ‘ordinary’ people and the elite alike.    

It comes as no surprise then, that some interviewees pointed to the disadvantages of a ‘dual system of decision-making’, and are concerned about a ‘conflict of governance models’.

In order to encourage the prospects for future democratic development in Fiji, clear political strategies for rendering decision-making structures and processes conducive to democratic development must be identified.

The starting point should be the acknowledgement of the hybridity (as highlighted above) of the current means of decision-making. Next, the challenge of reconciling these different systems of decision-making must be addressed, so that a system and culture of decision-making that is perceived by the vast majority of Fijian citizens as being just, appropriate and sustainable can be established.

This should not mean abolishing one type of decision-making process only to impose a new and allegedly better (that is, more democratic) one from the outside and from the top.   On the contrary, what is already there should be engaged with, through trying to nurture, strengthen and improve it, with a clear vision of the direction this should take.

Democratic decision-making should then be understood as inclusive, participatory, consultative, accountable, deliberative, transparent and egalitarian. In particular, the representation of women and youth needs to be strengthened.

Taking this approach seriously means acknowledging how decision-making structures at local level function, while simultaneously initiating a debate about how to strengthen the representation of women and youth in decision-making processes. Such a debate will inevitably lead to reforms of the current decision-making structures and procedures. What is more, the mere fact of having this debate will itself transform the ways decisions are made.

Starting with reforms in the local context, this approach can be expanded so as to address all the different levels of decision-making, from the local to the national. Improving the transparency of decision-making processes at higher levels, and improving communication channels between all the different levels are of major importance, so that people do not feel alienated or excluded from decision-making beyond their locale, but can gain better insights into those decision-making processes that are removed from their everyday lives.

This process will not lead to the substitution of one system of decision-making for another, but instead to the facilitation and management of hybridity in ways that foster more democratic decision-making.

The focus groups and interviews gave plenty of evidence of where starting points can be found in day-to-day life for the gradual reform of decision-making. Participants and interviewees alike perceive decision-making to be a social process of arguing and bargaining, and are also familiar with the idea of voting and decisions taken on the basis of a majority vote; voting as a means of decision-making is generally accepted.

Even the more conservative sections of the populace are aware of the norms of democratic decision-making, and the need to engage with those norms; outright rejection of democratic decision-making is clearly a minority position today.

In other words, the notion of democratic decision-making has become authoritarian in today’s discourse, and its proponents are on the offensive.

The debate no longer revolves around the validity of democratic decision-making as a principle, but rather about how to implement this principle. In pursuit of this debate, it would be imprudent to sideline and marginalize those who are still sceptical or who oppose it, as this would lead to destructive conflict. Rather, they should be offered ways to join the process of reform.

At the same time, all those who see democratic decision-making as desirable, but are fatalistic about its achievability, should be shown realistic ways in which change can be brought about.

Next week we learn what the researchers learned on the issue of “leadership” in Fiji.

A full copy of the report, “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji” is available from the Pacific Theological College’s Institute for Research and Social Analysis.

“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”

ENDS

Voices of the People

Published in the Fiji Times's "OFF THE WALL WITH PADRE JAMES"  on Wednesday 20th February, 2013

What do we really think about how decisions are made in the family, the community and national level?

Does consensus-seeking in village or town meetings provide another real model of democracy?

What kinds of rules/laws guide your conduct?

What types of leadership actually exist on the ground in Fiji, what do both ‘ordinary’ people and elites think about these types, and what they think are desirable, legitimate forms of leadership?

What is the current understanding of citizenship among Fijians today?

This afternoon (Wednesday) the results of a research project to identify ways in which the people of Fiji would like to be governed will be released in a book titled, “Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji”.

The research was undertaken in 2011 and 2012 by the Pacific Theological College’s Institute for Research and Social Analysis, conducted through 41 focus group discussions involving 330 participants, and conducting 82 in-depth interviews, on the issues decision-making, leadership, citizenship, the rule of law, and democracy in order to understand what the people of Fiji think of, and what their vision is, for good governance - in the form of democracy, or otherwise.

IRSA is the research arm of PTC, specializing in applied social research, and capacity-building activities for churches and NGOs in the region.

Local and international researchers interviewed representatives of the Government, politicians, traditional leaders, religious leaders, diplomats, academics, those in business and those working in NGOs, amongst others.

At the same time focus group discussions were conducted throughout Viti Levu and Vanua Levu by representatives of four local NGOs. These focus groups included participants from rural, semi-urban and urban areas; as well as men, women and youth – a consultation with people from all walks of life in Fiji.

Dr. Manfred Ernst, Director of the Institute of Research and Social Analysis and Co-author and Co-editor of the book said, “In writing this report, we have tried our utmost to reproduce faithfully the voices of Fijian people as we heard them during the focus group discussions and interviews. This report reflects both those things which people find positive in the current situation, as well as those things that they struggle with, and worry about. We hope that these findings will provoke thoughtful and reasoned debate on the issues outlined therein, and will enrich the dialogue begun under the current government through the process of making submissions towards the new constitution, as well as provide food for thought for politicians and voters alike in the run-up to the next elections.”

In determining the sample for both focus groups and interviews, great care was taken to accurately reflect the composition of Fijian society in terms of gender, religion, ethnicity, age, education, status, living conditions and geographical distribution.

The aim of the report is to present the perceptions and visions of the people of Fiji for future democratic development, as well as their opinions as to the preconditions required for this development. To achieve this aim, researchers assessed the following five key areas: (1) Democracy; (2) Rule of Law; (3) Leadership; (4) Decision-Making; and (5) Citizenship.

Given that in the next few weeks the Constituent Assembly is to be named and convened, “Voices of the People” may be a valuable tool for Assembly members who wish to consider how locals understand the issues that may be elements of  a new constitution and what a Fijian model of democracy may be like.

The book is more than just results of the research. It also includes a scholarly and theoretic discussion and key recommendations.

According to the book’s authors, “where proposals for democratic reform are made in this report, it is important to view these as urging the provision of opportunities for the people to articulate and develop a form of democratic governance that is appropriate to and suitable for Fiji’s cultural, religious and political conditions, while being mindful of the fundamental ideals and values of democracy.”

Although the publication is primarily academic, this publication will be a useful contribution to the process of establishing a home-grown and appropriate form of sustainable democracy in Fiji.

Given that for the first time, voters may include young people still in school or tertiary study (18 years and over) this book will be of significant interest to senior students.

The launch for the book will be held at the Suva Civic Auditorium on at 5pm this afternoon (Wednesday) and is open to all.

For those who are not able to attend the launch or get a copy of the book, over the next 6 weeks, I will summarise the study’s findings in the five key areas and present the key recommendations that resulted from the study.

The study may shed new light on issues we have been grappling with for the last 3 decades, if not longer. At the very least, it gives us the opportunity to hear the voices of others who may or may not be singing in the same key as us.

“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”

ENDS.