The Fiji military has warned that individuals responsible for “any attempt to destabilise national security” and those who aid “individuals engaged in criminal activity” have been “put on notice”.

It comes after the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) confirmed just last Friday that “unknown individuals” had made “unsuccessful” attempts to access its installations.

To allay public anxiety, the RFMF assured that “there is no threat to public safety arising from the incident”.

However, in a statement on Monday night, the military said it had initiated joint security operations with the Fiji Police Force as “a deliberate and measured approach to recent unacceptable challenges to security, including threats to infrastructure and isolated acts of violence against civilians and officers in the line of duty”.

While pointing out its constitutional responsibility to “ensure the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians”, the RFMF said it would not take these matters lightly.

“Therefore, we put on notice that any attempt to destabilise national security or endanger the wellbeing of citizens will be met with firm, lawful and proportionate action.”

According to the statement — authorised by the military commander — the enhanced security measures are expected to “continue for as long as necessary”.

“Members of the public are reminded that providing shelter, assistance, or support to individuals engaged in criminal activity is an offence and directly undermines national security.”

The Fiji Military is encouraging the public to remain vigilant and report suspicious activities to the relevant authorities.

‘Alarming’ development – Labour Party
The Fiji Labour Party (FLP) has reacted to the developments by questioning the current state of national security in the country.

“As a party that has twice been the victim of military coups — in 1987 and 2000 — we understand only too well how fragile national security can become when well-organised elements with ill intent are allowed to operate,” it said in a statement on Sunday.

It said the unauthorised access to RFMF installations “is particularly alarming when set against the backdrop of rising drug-related activities and seizures across Fiji in recent times”.

“The emergence of sophisticated, well-coordinated criminal elements poses a direct threat to public safety and national stability,” the party said in a statement.

“Even though the RFMF has confirmed that no weapons, ammunition, or equipment were compromised, the very fact that such attempts were made sends a dangerous signal: our defence installations may not be as impenetrable as we have been led to believe.”

FLP is demanding clear answers and concrete action to strengthen safeguards across all military and strategic installations.

Meanwhile, Fijians are set to head to the polls later this year.

The general elections can be held anytime between August 7 (earliest) and 6 February 2027 (latest).

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

When peace is being designed, Fiji is not invited into the room.

When peace needs enforcing, Fiji is asked to send soldiers.

That uncomfortable reality is exposed by the emergence of US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” for Gaza.

While New Zealand was formally invited to join the Board — and chose to decline — Fiji was not invited at all.

Yet Fiji has reportedly been asked to contribute troops to a proposed “stabilisation force” linked to Gaza.

The contrast is revealing. It highlights how global security is increasingly organised — and where Fiji is positioned within that order.

The Board of Peace is reportedly structured as an exclusive body with a joining fee of around US$2 billion.

That cost alone places participation far beyond the reach of most developing countries.

For Fiji, whose entire national budget is only a fraction of that amount, membership is not simply impractical; it is structurally impossible.

In this model, peace is something designed by those who can afford entry — a “pay to play” arrangement.

Yet although Fiji cannot afford to “play”, its military presence is required.

The peacekeeping paradox: Respected soldiers, limited voice

For decades, Fijian soldiers have served with distinction in peacekeeping missions under the United Nations flag. Their professionalism, discipline and reliability are widely recognised.

But that reputation now risks confining Fiji to a familiar role: valued for its manpower but excluded from decision-making.

This is not partnership. It is subcontracting.

Fiji should not carry the risks of other people’s decisions without having a voice in them.

New Zealand had a choice. Fiji did not.
New Zealand’s refusal to join Trump’s Board of Peace, underscores the imbalance.

Wellington cited concerns about mandate clarity and alignment with international norms.

New Zealand had the opportunity to make that choice.

Fiji did not.

One country was offered a seat at the table; the other was offered boots on the ground.

For Fiji, this raises serious foreign policy questions.

The issue is not opposition to peacekeeping. The issue is peacekeeping without political voice — being asked to assume risk in missions shaped by others and detached from established multilateral oversight.

Alignment with existing policy
These concerns align closely with Fiji’s National Security and Defence Review (NSDR), which recognises that national security includes the adherence to international law, and the maintenance of trust in Fiji’s external engagements.

Central to the NSDR is the requirement that security commitments be legitimate, transparent and accountable, supported by clear civilian oversight.

Being asked to deploy troops into a stabilisation force designed outside the UN system, while being excluded from the political body determining its mandate, sits way outside those espoused principles.

The moral burden on soldiers and the families
Fiji will bear the operational and political risk but has little influence over strategic direction. Fiji will carry the risks without shaping the outcome.

This puts RFMF soldiers in an unclear and fraught position. They — and their families — are the ones who will carry the risk in this venture. It is a morally and ethically unfair burden for the government to place upon them.

This moment therefore calls for clarity and restraint by the decision makers in Fiji’s Parliament and Cabinet.

The question is not whether Fiji can contribute troops — history shows that it can and has done so with honour.

The question is whether such contributions serve Fiji’s national interest and upholds international legitimacy.

Honouring our legacy
Fiji’s peacekeeping legacy should not be used to justify accepting deployments where authority, accountability and purpose are unclear.

Peacekeeping without representation is not partnership.

Fiji has earned international respect as a contributor to global peace. It should not accept a future in which it is always invited to serve but never invited to decide.

No soldier should be sent into harm’s way without clear purpose, lawful authority, and their nation’s voice at the table.

Jim Sanday was a commissioned military officer in the pre-coup Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) and commanded Fijian peacekeeping battalions in Lebanon and Sinai. In 2025, he led the National Security and Defence Review (NSDR) and co-authored the National Security Strategy that was approved by Cabinet in June 2025. This article was first pubished by the Fiji Sun and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Army commander Major-General Jone Kalouniwai has highlighted the need for the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to “redeem itself” as an institution and embark on a process of transformation, reconciliation, and restoration.

Speaking at the Force Church Service for the RFMF at Queen Elizabeth Barracks, Major-General Kalouniwai said the 1987, 2000, and 2006 political upheavals were mentioned as key moments in Fiji’s history where the RFMF played a significant role in coups.

He said yesterday marked a significant event as the institution embarked on a journey of reconciliation and restoration.

Major-General Kalouniwai emphasised the importance of acknowledging past wrongs and seeking reconciliation with those who had been affected by the actions of the RFMF.

He urged members of the RFMF to reach out to those who had been wronged and amend things in order to set things right.

The army commander said the call for reconciliation and restoration came at a crucial time for the RFMF as it sought to move forward from its troubled past and build a more positive and inclusive future.

The RFMF said Major-General Kalouniwai’s words served as a reminder of the responsibility that the RFMF had to the people of Fiji and the importance of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation in order to heal the wounds of the past.

Symbolic gesture
The Force Church Service at Queen Elizabeth Barracks was a symbolic gesture of the RFMF’s commitment to reconciliation and restoration.

The army said it was hoped that this event would mark the beginning of a new chapter for the RFMF, one that was characterised by transparency, accountability, and a commitment to upholding the values of democracy and respect for human rights.

It also said that as the RFMF embarked on this journey of reconciliation and restoration, it was important for all members of the institution to reflect on their actions and strive to make amends for past wrongs.

They said by acknowledging the mistakes of the past and seeking forgiveness, the RFMF could begin rebuilding trust with the people of Fiji and move towards a more peaceful and prosperous future.

Vijay Narayan is news director of Fijivillage. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“Our people are fed up with coups”  — this is the message from renowned Fijian academic Professor Steven Ratuva as he reiterated the statement shared by Minister for Home Affairs Pio Tikoduadua earlier this week.

Professor Ratuva, director of Canterbury University’s Centre for Pacific Studies in New Zealand, said coups had no place in modern politics and Fiji was no exception.

“It corrupts and destroys the very principles on which constitutional democracy is built, it is destructive to the economy, disrupts social relationships and wellbeing and creates a cycle of instability in the long run,” he said.

“A coup is like the covid epidemic with a long tail and unfortunately, we are still in the shadows of the long tails of the previous coups because the impacts are still with us, even as years pass.

“Up to a point, people will reach the coup-fatigue threshold and Fiji would have reached it long ago, as people are just fed up [with] coups and simply hearing rumours associated with coups, it is psychologically traumatising to say the least.”

Professor Ratuva said the whole nation had collectively been traumatised by the series of coups in the past since 1987 and it was time to “put a stop to this scourge”.

He added that the military, as a professional security institution, was often subjected to external political interests and pressures to serve narrow political and personal ends.

Military for ‘nation-building’
He also commended the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai for his conduct during this time.

“The military must be an independent institution for national security and nation-building, not a tool for illegal state capture by some,” Professor Ratuva said.

“Fiji’s military commander is a highly educated officer with an internationally reputable status and his calm and intelligent response to destabilising rumours, gives the nation a sense of assurance and comfort.

“He and the military will need support by all political parties and citizens generally to maintain stability in these challenging times.”

Shayal Devi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A New Zealand-based professor in comparative politics says the Fiji constitution needs to clear up the role of the military.

Dr Jon Fraenkel of Victoria University, formerly of the University of the South Pacific, says the 2013 constitution revived the provision that existed in the 1990 constitution which gave the military responsibility for looking after the well-being of the Fiji people.

But he told Pacific Waves this needed clarifying.

“Of course, when that was first introduced in 1990, it was as part of an ethno-nationalist constitution that was seeking to codify indigenous paramountcy in the states. At that point, I think the Fiji military [Republic of Fiji Military Forces] contemplated briefly assuming power in an unconstitutional way for 16 years.

“But it didn’t do that. And by the early 1990s, things had calmed down there was a desire to read for civilian government, for the military to keep out of politics. It’s only really in the wake of the [George] Speight coup that Mohammed Aziz rehabilitated this provision in the 1990 constitution, and suggested that it was still applied under the 1997 constitution, and then they put it in the 2013 constitution.

“And what does this mean? Well, it could mean just about anything. What does it mean to look after the welfare of the Fiji people? You could interpret that to mean anything at all?

“I noticed that before the final result, when [Sitiveni] Rabuka, perhaps misguidedly, complained to the military commander about the glitch about the counting of the election ballots, the military commander said that that wasn’t within his remit.

Protecting ‘well-being’
“In other words, he thought that it didn’t fall under section 131 of the Constitution that gives the military right to intervene to protect the well-being of the Fiji people.

“But after the formation of the new government in early January, the military commander, Major-General Jone Kalouniwai did make a peculiar statement where he expressed concern about the ambition of the government and about the speed at which things were moving.

“And he also suggested that the military might have some responsibility for making sure that the separation of powers is guaranteed.

“Now, that’s usually a role for the courts, not for the military. So one has to be careful about this kind of expansive understanding of the role of the military and the new Fiji. I think there needs to be further discussions about what that actually means.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Home affairs Minister has held an urgent meeting with the nation’s military chief after he expressed concern about the new People’s Alliance-led government.

The government, a three-party coalition led by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, has been in power for less than a month.

Major-General Jone Kalouniwai yesterday warned that the government was taking “shortcuts that circumvent the relevant processes and procedures” which could lead to “long-term national security consequences”.

Kalouniwai’s statement also highlighted the military’s “guardian role” in the constitution, which he claimed was to ensure “excesses [of power] of the past are not repeated”.

The Home Affairs Minister, Pio Tikoduadua, who has responsibility for defence, said he and Kalouniwai had a frank exchange of views, but both were committed to respecting the result of last month’s election.

In a statement, Tikoduadua said he assured the commander that all the government’s actions had been guided by the law.

“The commander and I have spoken, and we have expressed our views frankly to each other. We both believe in the rule of law, democracy, and the rights of every citizen to go about their affairs in peace,” he said.

‘Respecting will of people’
“We are both committed to respecting the will of the people through the outcome of the 2022 general election and protecting that decision, let come what may.

“No one should forget that the commander and the military have also helped us navigate our way, democratically, to a new government a month ago when many people were uncertain that Fiji could achieve a successful transition of government.

“All of us are learning. We are slowly undoing all the misconceptions about democratic governance that have been allowed to take root over the last 16 years. Our institutions are absorbing the impact of a new govemment with different ideas and new priorities.

“But through all of this, we will be talking to each other, in the spirit of consultation to provide the best for the Fijian people.”

The FBC News reports Prime Minister Rabuka said he was not concerned about the public utterances made by Jone Kalouniwai.

He said he had no concerns over the relationship he shared with the military, and he was confident in the RFMF leadership and also the force members.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The People’s Alliance Party took an early lead in the Fiji general election vote tally this evening with a total of 21,810 votes recorded after the completion of counting from 470 of the 2071 polling stations.

The governing FijiFirst Party was in second place with 16,515 votes and SODELPA running third with 3684 votes.

The National Federation Party followed with 3256 votes and Unity Fiji in fifth place with 1688 votes.

The other results by party as at the 5pm update provided by the Fijian Elections Office are:

Fiji Labour Party – 1269
We Unite Fiji Party – 1179
All Peoples Party – 614
New Generation Party – 175
Rajendra Sharma (Independent) – 26
Ravinesh Reddy (Independent) – 21

The top five candidates at that update were:

Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama – 11,248
Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka – 6738
Lynda Diseru Tabuya – 1397
Siromi Dokonivalu Turaga – 1048
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum – 927

Counting continues at the National Count Centre and the next update is due to be provided by the Supervisor of Elections at 10pm.

Timoci Vula is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Fiji’s military will respect electoral process – Kalouniwai
RNZ Pacific reports that the Fiji military commander has rejected a request by opposition party leaders to intervene in a dispute over the country’s election process.

Major-General Jone Kalouniwai said the military (RFMF) as an institution would put its trust in the electoral process.

“I wish to reassure the people of Fiji that the RFMF will not respond to [PAP leader Sitiveni ] Rabuka’s insistence or any political party, that we intervene under our responsibilities from Section 131.2 of the 2013 Constitution,” Kalouniwai said.

“The constitutional responsibility of the RFMF section 131.2 does not make any reference to intervening or getting involved with the electoral processes or management of voting or counting of votes with the assistance of the military.”

Kalouniwai explained that using the military in any form during the electoral process was unconstitutional.

The statement came after a group of opposition party leaders called for a halt to vote counting yesterday, demanding an audit of the country’s electoral system.

It was triggered by an anomaly in provisional results that was displayed on a Fiji Election Office results app on Wednesday night.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A contingent of 50 Republic of Fiji Military Forces troops flew to Honiara today to help restore security and stability in the Solomon Islands after three days of rioting last week.

Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama had pledged Fijian support for his Solomon Islands counterpart Manasseh Sogavare.

The request was accepted and Fiji’s troops were prepared, the RFMF said today in a statement.

The Fijian soldiers departed for Honiara on a Royal Australian Air Force C-130 transport plane about 12 noon. They are joining about 150 Australian and Papua New Guinea troops and police in Solomon Islands.

Commander Major-General Jone Kalouniwai said in his farewell speech to the troops at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva: “We are here, heeding the call of our nation through the Prime Minister after his discussion with the Solomon Islands Prime Minister to assist our fellow Melanesian family in the Solomons.”

“We are all placing our trust on you that you will go out there and perform to the best of your ability to help bring peace and stability in the Solomons,” said General Kalouniwai.

Contingent Commander Lieutenant-Colonel Asaeli Toanikeve thanked the RFMF leadership for their trust in his leadership.

‘We will bravely stand’
“I would also like to assure you that we will bravely stand and heed the call of the military and the nation for we believe this is God calling on our lives to assist the people of the Solomon Islands in their time of need,” Lieutenant-Colonel Toanikeve said.

Assigned to prepare the contingent, the commanding officer 3rd Battalion Fiji Infantry Regiment, Lieutenant-Colonel Penioni Naliva, said the troops had been briefed on what to expect.

“More importantly, they are there to assist law enforcement agencies in the Solomon Islands bring back peace and stability to their country,” Colonel Naliva said.

Naliva added that the deploying contingent, which has been made up of men from all units of the RFMF, would be specifically tasked with ensuring a stable environment for future operations in case more troops were needed.

Just four years into his military career and going on his first deployment, Legal Officer Captain Aisea Paka said he was excited when it was conveyed to him that he was going on this tour.

“I had a feeling that the time would come for it. However, mindful of the work we are to partake in, there are a lot of legal matters to deal with apart from operations. I want to thank the leadership for this opportunity,” said the Rotuman officer.

Akanisi Vakanawa, wife of a deploying soldier, said that while the news of the sudden deployment came as a surprise it was something she had always expected.

Almost 80 years after Fiji troops first landed in the Solomons during the Second World War and 15 years since their last deployment with the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to the Pacific nation, Fijian soldiers are returning.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The opinion polls about voting intentions for Fiji’s 2022 General Election suggests that voters face the horrible challenge of choosing as their next Prime Minister one of two former military officers.

Both of these former soldiers have carried out military coups removing lawfully elected governments.

Is Fiji genuinely between, as the saying goes, “a rock and a hard place”? I suggest that today’s young voters, who have only known the 14 years of governance by the Voreqe Bainimarama government, need to think also about how Sitiveni Rabuka governed Fiji after his 1987 coup.

Both coup leaders may have coup skeletons in their cupboards.

But only one is being very selectively focused on by the current Republic of Fiji Military Force (RFMF) commander, writing (appropriately) in the other daily newspaper, Fiji Sun.

Fiji’s voters ought to focus on historical facts by answering the following difficult questions about the two coup leaders:

• Who were really behind the coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006?
• How did each coup leader change Fiji’s constitution and Fiji’s governance?
• How did each coup leader change the powerful institutions of state, such as police, prisons and judiciary?
• How did each coup leader influence the media?
• Were our coup leaders collective decision-makers or dictators?
• Were the coup leaders accountable to the voters or to “powers behind the throne”?

Perhaps Fiji is more accurately “between a rock and a softer place” with political and economic progress only possible if there is a change in government.

Behind the 1987 coup?
The world knows that Sitiveni Rabuka, the third in command in the RFMF, implemented the first 1987 coup.

But anyone watching the very public protests against the 1987 NFP/FLP government would have known that the former Prime Minister (the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara) and the Governor-General and later President (the late Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau), and all their entourages, would have had their ears very close to the ground and, possibly, their fingers in the pie.

But importantly, what did Rabuka do afterwards as coup leader?

Rabuka became multiracial
Victor Lal and Fijileaks rightly remind readers about the trauma that Rabuka’s 1987 coup caused the Indo-Fiji community.

But what needs also to be discussed is Rabuka’s reform of the racist 1990 Constitution and his support of the revolutionary 1997 Constitution.

Rabuka, in partnership with Jai Ram Reddy (Leader of the National Federation Party) agreed to the appointment of the three-person Reeves Constitution Commission (Sir Paul Reeves, Tomasi Vakatora Snr and Dr Brij Lal).

Their report was the basis of the 1997 Constitution, with one valuable addition not in the report.

It is sadly often forgotten today that the 1997 Constitution included a “multiparty government” provision.

This ensured that any party with at least 10 percent of the seats in Parliament had to be invited to join the cabinet and share in the governance of Fiji.

Of course, there was one huge defect in its electoral system, which I had explained even as I (as a NFP Member of Parliament then) voted to pass the 1997 Constitution. (“The Constitution Review Commission Report: sound principles but weak advice on electoral system”, The Fiji Times, November 1, 1996).

But we in the NFP were in a hurry to approve the progressive constitutional change agreed to by Rabuka.

We knew he had to convince some very reluctant colleagues, and we fully co-operated for the 1999 Elections.

I remember accompanying Ratu Inoke Kubuabola in his election campaigns in the Yasawas and Ratu Sakiusa Makutu in Nadroga.

Sadly, both Indo-Fijian and indigenous Fijian voters rejected the multiracial stance of Rabuka and Reddy.

Nevertheless, it is to Rabuka’s credit that he accepted the results of the election and humbly offered his services to Mahendra Chaudhry as the incoming PM (on the phone in my presence on the Vatuwaqa Golf Course).

Unfortunately, for reasons that historians can explore till the cows come home, Chaudhry did not accept that humble offer from Rabuka, who soon after lost the leadership of SVT to Ratu Inoke Kubuabola.

Ignored today are the following:

• the historical opportunity to implement a multiracial multiparty government (of the Fiji Labour Party and Mr Rabuka’s Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party went begging. Thus the cogs of the 2000 coup were set in motion;
• the 1997 Constitution had an upper house — the Senate which was a solid “checks and balances” mechanism of national leaders, and which could officially hold the decisions of the elected House of Representatives to account; and
• by and large the institutions of government were relatively independent of the government of the day. Less clear are the events of 2000.

Behind the 2000 coup?
It is a real tragedy that while George Speight is seen as the leader of the 2000 coup, the truth has never been revealed about who else, including military officers, might have had more than just a sticky hand in it.

It is a real tragedy that Fiji has forgotten the names of a few honest RFMF officers who were very ethically opposed to the 2000 coup. From personal communications to me, I list the following: Ilaisa Kacisolomone, George Kadavulevu, Vilame Seruvakoula, Akuila Buadromo and several others.

But also conveniently forgotten are the names of RFMF officers who were at least initially behind the 2000 coup, many revealed by the Evans Board of Inquiry Report (which can be freely downloaded from the TruthForFiji website).

What is historically indisputable is that after RFMF gained control of the situation  Bainimarama chose not to restore the lawful Chaudhry government to power but appointed the interim Qarase government, thereby effecting the real coup.

It is said that some of the CRW soldiers involved in the November 2000 mutiny did so because they felt betrayed by some in the RFMF hierarchy.

It is not disputed that a number of CRW soldiers (not necessarily involved in the mutiny) ended up dead after the mutiny in circumstances not known to this day.

It is not in dispute that Rabuka, with his uniform, appeared at Queen Elizabeth Barracks at the time of the mutiny.

But while one newspaper is focusing on his actions, the roles of several other senior RFMF officers during the 2000 coup are not being similarly examined.

2006 and governance since then
Now we come to the 2006 coup.

In contrast to those which went before, there is no doubt whatsoever that the then RFMF commander, Voreqe Bainimarama, was the sole leader of the 2006 coup and totally controlled the government thereafter, while still controlling the RFMF.

Given what have I sketched above, the sheer contrasts of the Bainimarama coup with the Rabuka coup are all too obvious.

It is tragically forgotten that the 2006 coup did not just depose Qarase’s SDL government.

It deposed a multi-party government — a government of Qarase’s Soqosqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) Party and FLP.

One can understand why Chaudhry as FLP leader has never emphasised that point.

Soon after the 2006 coup, he joined Bainimarama’s government as Minister of Finance.

It is indisputable that Bainimarama ruled Fiji for eight years as the head of a military government which was not democratically accountable to the Fiji public.

A “People’s Charter” exercise was carried out under the leadership of John Samy and the late Archbishop Mataca but rejected without explanation.

Professor Yash Ghai’s Constitutional Commission was appointed by Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

It produced a comprehensive draft constitution, but Professor Ghai and his Commission were also were sent packing for reasons never clarified.

A 2013 Constitution with little popular input was imposed on Fiji without the approval of any elected Parliament.

The Senate was abolished.

Parliament has become a rubber stamp for the legislative changes the current government wants.

Many important institutions of government were allowed by the Constitution to come under the direct or indirect control of the politicians who controlled the government.

Large sections of the media (with the painful exception of The Fiji Times) and the Media Industry Development Authority came under government influence or control.

Undermining the Ministry of Information, a massive amount of money was spent annually on American propaganda machine Qorvis.

One government minister, not the Prime Minister, clearly became all powerful while others toed the line or were ejected from Parliament.

To fund the ruling party’s electioneering, the owners of some of Fiji’s largest businesses have worked their way around the annual political donation limit of $10,000 by using family members and even in some cases staff, contributing hundreds of thousands in cash.

A distorted electoral system
Under the 2013 Constitution an electoral system was imposed, supposedly proportional, but designed to elect a President type “leader” with the bulk of the votes, while the rest of his MPs and ministers had pitifully small numbers.

There was an outrageous ballot paper for one national constituency without names, faces, or party symbols, just one number among more than 200 from which Fiji’s largely undereducated voters were to select one number.

Voters were not allowed the help of even a “voter assistance card” (common in all democratic countries) which was astonishingly made illegal with heavy fines.

This utterly contrived electoral system was given the stamp of approval by many authoritative figures such as the Catholic cleric Reverend David Arms and even self-censoring USP academics whose academic journal covering the 2014 elections blazoned “ENDORSED” on their cover.

That system was perpetuated through the 2018 Elections and is now in full swing for the 2022 elections.

The outcome of those elections will be interesting to say the least, given that under the Constitution the RFMF can claim legal responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of Fiji, which may be what they decide themselves.

Between a rock and a softer place?
Of course, Fiji’s voters might also want to examine the impact of the two coup leaders on the public debt, FNPF and the economic welfare (and poverty) of ordinary people of Fiji.

But even the very simple comparisons and contrasts that I have drawn above between Rabuka and Bainimarama in their governance of Fiji, would suggest that Fiji is not between “the rock and a hard place” but “between a rock and a softer place”.

I am sure that The Fiji Times readers are intelligent enough to decide who is the “rock” and who is the “softer place” — regardless of the skeletons rattling in both their cupboards.

Professor Wadan Narsey is a former professor of economics at The University of the South Pacific and a leading Fiji economist and statistician. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz