Sept 29, 2000 (by Jone Dakuvula)

Mere Samisoni had published a series of articles beginning on 25/09/00 represented as the S.V.T. Party view. Here I reply only to some factual errors in her first article. She claimed the seizure of Government by George Speight came out of the unequal distribution of the benefits of development and unsuitability of our version of the democratic process"

She also observed that the line of communication from the Provincial Councils to the Village levels was weak but she does not know that it was the Alliance Government that abolished the Provincial Council elections. Her observation actually weakens her argument about the rejection of the Reeves Report by the Provincial Councils because it is an admission of the unrepresentativeness of these Councils. The present system suits Politicians like Inoke Kubuabola as they can be members or sit as Chairmen of the Provincial Councils and then manipulate for their own political purpose.

This was evident in the rejection of the Constitution by 8 Provincial Councils. SVT Politicians campaigned in the Councils for rejection of the Reeves Report. Had Vakatora been allowed to explain the Reeves Report, all these Councils would have accepted it. The first two that he adressed accepted the Report. Then the opponents of the Report intervened at the Prime Minister's Office to stop Vakatora from visiting any more Councils. Laisenia Qarase had complained that the Lau Provincial Council took less than 30 minutes to decide on the Reeves Report. None of the Members had read it. That is the farcical basis of the rejection by 8 Provincial Councils that Mere and the SVT keep harping about as justificatioon for the coup.

She also said there should have been a provision for a national referendum on the 1997 Constitution. But the 1990 Constitution had no provision for this. Now that the deposed Coalition Government has asked for a National Referendum the S.V.T. rejects it. She then claimed, "It was because of pressure from Centralised Western democracy" that there was no national referendum. That is absolutely wrong. The 1990 Constitution provided for the review to be completed and amendment implemented 7 years after 1990. The S.V.T. Government appointed the Commission in 1995 and gave it only 18 months to complete its work. That left little time for public education about the Constitution before the General Election was upon us.

She complains about the Electoral System, particularly about the decision to have above the line voting which gave the Parties the choice of preferences. This distorted the Election results. But the choice of above the line voting was agreed to by all the major political parties in Parliament and the trading of preferences which worked against the S.V.T. was made by the political parties in Parliament.Under first past the post which she prefers, the SVT would still have lost.

Her understanding of the Fijian custom of "veivakaliuci" is limited and misguided. "Veivakaliuci" describes the custom of deference and respect for Chiefs and people who are perceived to be superior spiritually or in education, political speech making etc is not necessarily a strength in terms of social Capital as she claims. Many Fijians will argue that it is a cultural disincentive against creativity,iniative, individual enterprise and accountability.

She criticised the decision to make voting compulsory but this was made by the S.V.T. because it believed this would work to the advantage of the Party. But F.L.P. better understood the Electoral System and was organised to take advantage. She alleges that the Constitution had enabled Chaudhry to continuously work towards the suppression of the views of pro-indigenous Fijians. She did not give any examples.

She argued that Chaudhry "should not have been allowed to shut out the S.V.T. and N.V.T.L.P. from the Cabinet. In fact the S.V.T. played into Mr Chaudhry's inclination to exlude the S.V.T. by putting conditions in their acceptance. Had the S.V.T. not allowed Jim Ah Koy to put in these conditions, Chaudhry would not have had an excuse to exclude S.V.T. from the Cabinet.

As for her objection to the V.L.V's inclusion in the Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry was allowed to do this under the Constitution and their share of Cabinet posts came out of the proportional entitlement of the F.L.P. If Mere had taken the trouble to read the 1997 Constitution, she would not have been asking these questions which show up her ignorance of the Constitution. She also asserted that the Taukei marches were not the result of the S.V.T's frustration with not being heard in Parliament. Surely, she could not have been ignorant of the plan for destabilisation that was decided about the middle of 1999 between Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, Apisai Tora and their group of ex politicians and party activists.

They played on the insecurity of the indigenous Fijians and their political inclination to distrust an Indo-Fijian led Government to, develop a level of political fanaticism evident in the Taukei marches. For example, the Fijians mahogany land owners of Tailevu and Namosi were influenced by George Speight to believe that Chaudhry's choice of C.D.C. as the preferred bidder was a sell out of "indigenous rights", hence the mass mobilisation of people from these Provinces to Parliament. She does not add credibility to her argument by distorting and mmisrepresenting the election result figures to support of her thesis that indigenous Fijian mobilisation in support of Speight was in response to a real threat to indigenous Fijian interests. These Taukei marches were organised as part of the strategy for the seizure of Parliament and these ideas gestated originally from a destabilisation Committee of Ratu Invoke.

She said, "Those indigenous Fijians who have criticised George Speight's Coup are lackeys that foreign embassies found to sing their tune." Such allegation are really cheap and nonsensical. Cant she accept that we believe that it is a shameful thing ( quite apart from its illegality and immorality) for people who put themselves up as leaders of indigenous Fijians, to dishonour a Constitutional settlement that they had supported unanimously in Parliament about three years earlier? That is the Constitution that even she acknowledges "has a good spirit". What sort of leaders are these who agree to a Constitution but then tear it to pieces within a year because they lost the first General Election under it? It is childish behaviour. People who reject the rules that they made to bind themselves and their opponents, when it does not suit their greedy desires, are moral and political cowards. That is why the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group said the interim administration lacks legitimacy and credibility.

We, Fijians, are the only indigenous people in the South Pacific who have not been able to accept a democratic change of government. Is Mere Samasoni proud to pass on this historical lesson to the young and future generation of indigenous Fijians? It amazes me how an intelligent and successful woman like Mere Samasoni is unable to see what is legally and morally right from wrong? Our Indigenous Fijians leader still have not been able to learn (30 years after independence) one of the most precious inheritance we got from British Civilisation (or British Colonialism and imperialism as she prefers to call it), and that is the rule of law, which apply to everyone, (the Victor and the defeated), whatever a person's race, gender belief or other status in life. Many people despair that we will never learn, and reluctantly leave Fiji for other countries where they know the rule of law is respected and the verdict of democracy prevails. That is why we are asking for a return to the 1997 Constitution and Government of National Unity. It is for the sake of the young indigenous Fijians and future generation that we must bring back some semblance of trust, honour, respect and justice.

The illegal seizure of Parliament by George Speight's gang on May 19th and the subsequent military coup on 29th May was not a victory for the indigenous Fijians. It is a defeat that, if allowed to prevail, will reap untold suffering for our people in the future. It has deepened divisions, left unhealed wounds and has seriously undermined trust between our communities and in the integrity of our system of government. The coup has disillusioned many of our friends who were well qualified and committed to contributing to what they believed until May 19th was a country with a tolerant multiracial culture, a fair democracy and a bright future. A good country in which to bring up their children.They have emigrated and many more will go those countries where their talent and commitment will be appreciated. Fiji is the loser. . The international community recognises that this coup was not in anybody's interest, and especially the indigenous Fijians. That is why they have called for a return to the 1997 Constitution as a condition for the normalisation of relations.

E N D