Ethnic Fijians'Choice

by 
Raymond Croxon Q.C.
President
Movement for Democracy In Fiji

Ethnic Fijians face water shed decision. Do they follow the rest of the world into the 21st Century to seek a peaceful solution and let all the people of Fiji decide what the future portends, or do they like the mule stubbornly reject both common sense and their Christian doctrines.

There is not an animal more stubborn than a mule or it is believed as stupid. Some are un-trainable as they will keep going back to where they started and then make exactly the same mistake again. The development of civilisation to humans has been brought about by many factors, and one of the basic differences between humans and animals, like the mule, is that intelligent man learns by his mistakes. Take a very simple example, when fire was discovered, man soon learnt not to put his hand into the fire. He learnt it very quickly by painful experience. Regrettably there are always examples in history of men becoming obsessed and behaving not like intelligent men learning by their mistakes, but like mules or worse. Also like ostriches, bury their heads in the sand believing themselves to be safe but instead leaving their backsides open to be kicked or worse. Is there a parallel to be drawn between mules and ostriches and certain members of the elite Ethnic Fijians who are determined to hold on to elusory power in order to continue their racial beliefs and practices.

Let me remind Fijians that the same conflict occurred in the UK in

1909 -1910 when the House of Lords, an un-elected and hereditary body of men, rejected a Parliamentary Bill on taxation passed by the House of Commons.

On 2^nd December 1909 the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Herbert Asquith of the Liberal Party addressed the House of Commons in what became known as "Loaded Dice" The Lords Against the Constitution speech. This is in essence the crux of the issues now before the GCC in Fiji to whom it is being suggested that they should ignore the 1997 Fijian Constitution. I have selected what I believe to be a representative passage of the forceful argument presented by Mr. Asquith. I would however recommend readers to obtain a copy of the whole speech. The full text is available on our website.

[On what basis are they the House of Lords claiming to intervene in the government of the country] They are founded on what I believe to be an entirely novel assumption that the House of Lords has the right, if it does not like a Bill, to compel a reference to the electorate. I assert, on the contrary, two very simple propositions. The first is the presumption always is that the House of Commons, freely chosen by the people, represents the will of the people: and the second is that there is no presumption of any kind as regards the House of Lords (in Fiji the Great Council of Chiefs whose members are hereditary and their powers are those provided for in the Constitution), I would say parenthetically, I am willing and anxious, so far as the House of Commons is concerned (to have) a more frequent contact between the elected body and the electorate. (Prime Minister, Mr Mahendra Chaudhry, whose behaviour throughout his imprisonment and thereafter has been exemplary. An example to all of us, speaking on behalf of the Coalition Government, has already stated that when given the opportunity he will institute a general election so that the people can decide by their vote the way ahead for Fiji.). Let us see what it is (the theory is based upon). I will try to put the theory as plausibly as I can against myself.

The theory is that, that the people require to be protected against their own elected representatives, especially - may I not say exclusively?- when the majority of those represented happen to belong to the Liberal Party (as in the Fijian case it is the Labour Party). By whom is the protection to be afforded? In what quarter is it to be found? Here the theory goes on that Providence, as in so many other ways, has been exceptionally kind. It has supplied us with exactly the kind of thing we want for the purpose of an unforeseen and unforeseeable evolution in our ancient House of Lords (the GCC).

It is true that at first sight the uninstructed observer of an Assembly which is composed of hereditary peers of one party (equivalent to the Great Council of Chiefs, all being indigenous Fijians), might not seem to be pre-eminently qualified to exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function: but here again Providence steps in, and it would seem either at birth, or as the case may be upon creation as a peer, who receives a peerage, (coming of age to attend the GCC) there descends upon the favoured individual what I may call a kind of instinct of divination which enables him at all times thereafter to discern to a nicety, provided that a Liberal Government (Coalition Government) is in power, the occasions and matters in which the people's representatives are betraying the people's trust. Sceptical people sometimes tell us that the age of miracles is past. If the theory which I have just been endeavouring - I hope without exaggeration - to enunciate is anything like true, then the whole British Constitution (Fijian Constitution) depends on the off chance of a series of miracles. "

It should be pointed out that the Fijian Constitution is superior to that of the UK, in that the former is a written constitution approved by the people of Fiji in 1997, whereas the latter is part in writing and part not, although conventions have defined their guidelines.

Democracy requires an obedience to the Constitution without which there would be anarchy and hence any act contrary to the rights and duties set out in the Constitution is a very serious matter, and should under no circumstances be broken by an individual or groups of individuals. The Fijian 1997 Constitution was enacted by the will of the people and it can only be altered or abrogated by the will of the people in the ballot box. The parliamentary position is crystal clear because it is a matter fundamental to Fijian democracy any decision affecting the Constitution must be carried out exactly as the Constitution itself provides, no other way can be legally justified. The GCC has no such right nor has it a right to claim that the Constitution does not apply to them.

Any attempt by lawyers to say that the Qarase government has some validity because it has illegally taken upon itself the mantle of Government is plainly wrong and in direct conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeal.

I believe that a great and unique responsibility has fallen on Fijian lawyers whose duty it will be to assist in deciding, what actions are within the Constitution, and what actions not within, must apply themselves.  Such declarations, which are inconsistent with, are not. The obligation must be that they must give honest and transparent answers to the questions they are asked.

If any fall below that standard then their opinions must be judged by their peers and quashed if inappropriate and disciplinary measures taken against the lawyers.

It is time for sanity and justice to be returned to the Fijian people, the majority of whom are sick and tired of the disastrous conflict by the extremist Indigenous Fijians and I dare say others, seemingly being supported by the GCC, attempting to maintain a dominance over the people of Fiji which the GCC voluntarily surrendered in agreeing to the 1997 Fijian Constitution. It is necessary for them to dampen and cool the hotheads who have been stirring up others by their extreme views.

To the extremists on both sides of the fence I say to you "a plague on both your houses"  (Romeo & Juliet).

I was very heartened to read the sensible and carefully moderated observations of Justice Pius Langa on behalf of the Commonwealth of Nations who has so eloquently endorsed the Court of Appeal decision and advised the GCC and all Fijians to abide by the 1997 Constitution. In upholding the Constitution the GCC would be upholding the law, to fail to uphold the law will lead to anarchy and lawlessness.

I quote verbatim from two passages in the press release:

“To do otherwise, (than abide by the Constitution) would be to seriously undermine the rule of law and it would constitute an extremely negative precedent for the future of constitutional democracy in the country. It is unthinkable, for instance, that the president could knowingly sanction unconstitutional behaviour. The repercussions would be too serious, too traumatic, both inside Fiji and internationally.”

“Stability would be threatened and an opportunity to begin the process of fostering a constitutional ethic within the country will have been lost. Instead the constitution would evermore be seen as a document, capable of being disregarded with impunity.”

“Looking at the very next step to be taken, it seems to me that the Great Council of Chiefs needs to unambiguously advise the President to exercise only those options that are consistent with the 1997 Constitution.”

I fully endorse what he says and I pray that those in responsible positions in Fiji under whatever banner heed those words.

If any legal advice were to appear in the newspapers that Mr. Qarase can continue to exercise his right because although he was illegally appointed and he has acted without any authority he somehow can still remain in power because he is there! This is plainly rubbish. He can no longer sustain his power. The army has made a public undertaking that they would abide by the decision of the Court of Appeal. They therefore cannot continue to support the Qarase government and that is why all these meetings as to what should now take its place are being arranged.

What this small group of Ethnic Fijians are now engaged upon is more of the same, namely to raise two fingers to the people of Fiji, saying "We do not care about the legal constitution which you the people of Fiji have obtained by the ballot box and put into effect, nor about anyone else's human rights as we are not obliged to obey the law as the law does not give us the control of Fiji.

Even more disgraceful is that the false motive for seizing power is not a fear for themselves or for harm to the Fijian people, it is the claim that the Indian Fijians are not of the same race as the Indigenous Fijians.

They are alleged to have a different life style and religion and then by some inexplicable logic that the present situation is all the Indian Fijians’ fault and it is they who are to blame for all that happened to them.

It is inconceivable in my mind that any intelligent and fair-minded Indigenous Fijian could ever honestly believe that to be true.  Most of the Indian Fijians are of the third generation. They are as much Fijians as are those who claim to be Indigenous Fijians and many have lived on the islands for a longer period that some of the so-called Indigenous Fijians. Indian Fijians have been diligent workers and good citizens and have been in the forefront of reforms to Fijian society. They introduced Trade Unions into Fiji in an attempt to improve the lot of the ordinary working man whatever his race or creed. It is the nucleus of wrong-minded Indigenous Fijians who act very much like the House of Lords at an earlier age in the UK. They simply want to keep the status quo, no matter what it is doing to the economy of the country, or the well being of the ordinary Fijian citizen. That is why I drew a parallel comparison between the GCC and the House of Lords earlier in this article, as this was exactly what the latter were doing in the early part of the twentieth century. History does repeat itself.