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
No comments:
Post a Comment