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
No comments:
Post a Comment