MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES

MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES

(Keynote Address to the 34th Annual Congress of the Fiji Institute of Accountants, Sofitel Resort & Spa, Friday 23 June 2006. 10.00am)


We are now in exciting but unchartered waters. The Hon Prime Minister and Hon Mr Mahendra Chaudhry, leader of the Fiji Labour Party, are to be commended for making possible the advent of a Multiparty Government. It may yet fail because of the competing agendas of various interests. That is a subject for another day. For the present, it must be given every encouragement and support to make the initiative viable. To consolidate the gains we have made politically, economically and socially since May 2000, the country needs a respite from the bitter partisan divisions we have had.

The immediate challenges for the new Government are already evident. Groundrules and mechanisms for consultations must be developed and quickly implemented. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Compact in the Constitution sets out the criteria for a Government to follow. In addition the Korolevu Declaration, emanating from the early Talanoa sessions, has a framework which can provide guidelines. The recent incident involving Hon Mr Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi was a salutary reminder of the absence of working principles between elements of the Multiparty Government. As for the justifiable concern about the role of the Opposition, much angst has been expended on this issue. There is no reason why it cannot be reconfigured. It is a function backbenchers can perform irrespective of party affiliation. Alternatively, the Sector Committees of Parliament can be reviewed to determine how best they can carry out this task. The conventional model of the Westminster system should not limit our ability to make suitable adaptations.

Why is it so critical that this Multiparty Government be given every chance to succeed? Because for most of the period since 1987, we have been governed largely by indigenous Fijians with little pretence at involving the other communities who call this place home. It said little about inclusiveness. It said little about unity. It said little, other than by way of rhetoric, of building a future together. Now we have a unique opportunity to do so. With it our politicians especially have to develop new paradigms and ways of doing things. We relate to each other peaceably in the every day, why is this difficult to do so in the political arena? There are practically no insurmountable ideological barriers to speak of. Only the paradox of ethnicity. Where people prefer to practice identity politics for reasons of history, as well as a sense of security at one level. All the while seeking a co-operative and engaging spirit from their representatives, at another.

What will be decisive of the present Government’s fate is the tack it takes concerning controversial and sensitive issues. Second is the attitude of Mr Chaudhry. In his control of the Fiji Labour Party and his standing as the political leader of the IndoFijian community, Mr Chaudhry is in a strategic position to destroy the Multiparty Government. This can be done by way of an ultimatum from the FLP to its Members of Parliament who are in Cabinet. Alternatively, it will be a gradual erosion of Cabinet cohesion by a series of sustained attacks on the Government. The consequences will be serious for all of us. There will be recriminations and blame cast on all sides. They usually assume an ethnic hue in very short order. The resulting distrust will merely entrench the naysayers on all sides. So there are high stakes and failure has to be the last option available.

The Fiji Labour Party faces a dilemma of enormous proportions. Should it continue to co-operate, conceding to the Prime Minister much of the credit flowing therefrom? Is it not better that it withdraw from the Government and consolidate its position as the Opposition? It is relatively easy, perhaps even facile, for someone like me or any non-politician for that matter, to bleat about the national interest. Politics is about advantage, manoeuvre and counter manoeuvre. The FLP has difficult choices to make. Let it reflect on some related issues. Given demographics and continuing high levels of emigration, its core support base will continue to diminish. There is little prospect that voting patterns will alter significantly over the next decade. I would be delighted to be proved wrong. Therefore, unless the FLP is able to attract significant Fijian support, it runs the real risk of remaining on the sidelines. To those who consider it inappropriate for a deputy head of State to make such observations, I acknowledge the concern. My defence is that the Office of the President has little executive power. As the symbol of national unity, it has open to it the role “to advise, to counsel and to warn”. These remarks are made in that light, articulating the challenges this Multiparty Government will face.

For his part the Prime Minister is not without his critics in the Fijian community. There are some who will have no truck with this latest engagement. They remain adamantly opposed to the FLP in general, and IndoFijians in particular, playing any part in the Government. It is a very powerful emotion reminiscent of the “maître chez nous” sentiment in Quebec, Serbia and among the Afrikaners. However, a majority of Fijians appear to support the initiative because they can appreciate the benefits of working together. The caveat to this feeling is that Fijians must retain control. The strength of this desire should never be underestimated. It has had such devastating and tragic results when manipulated in the past. Within the parliamentary ranks of the SDL, there is some sense that the Multiparty Government is at their expense. Practically, it means that a portion of the positions in Cabinet are allocated to the FLP and thus denied them. Politics is not only about the bread and butter of the electorate. It is about politicians’ as well. Notwithstanding that, the elections strengthened the Prime Minister’s hand. The victory was due in large measure to his leadership. Despite the preferential disadvantages the SDL faced, the unnecessary complication in candidate selection caused by party officials and the fraught relationship with the military, the SDL was returned with a narrow majority despite the predictions of many political pundits.

Much will depend on what the National Council of the FLP will decide tomorrow. Let us assume a limited endorsement of sorts, based on the realpolitik of present circumstances. What will be the areas in which the Multiparty Government will be tested, and where the basic understandings in place to resolve differences will matter? They will include the land tenure debate, the restructure of the sugar industry, the manner in which affirmative action is currently implemented, the situation of non-unionised labour, the size and composition of the civil service, the relationship with the military and the fate of the Reconciliation, Tolerance and Promotion of Unity Bill. The list is not exhaustive but they seem to be the more obvious. That is not to preclude the likelihood of some relatively minor incident, that is exaggerated or blown out of proposition for whatever reason, sinking the Multiparty Government earlier. That is the nature of relationships which have to be nourished and reaffirmed constantly if they are to deepen and strengthen.

I begin with the Reconciliation, Tolerance and Promotion of Unity Bill. Never in our history has a proposed piece of legislation been so thoroughly and fiercely debated. Never has there been such exhaustive comment from all sides. Its withdrawal elicited both relief and resentment. The critics have not been allayed by the detailed and measured report of the Parliamentary Sector Committee on Justice, Law and Order. Many will only accept its complete removal. The previous SDL Government undertook to make some changes but vowed it would proceed with the Bill. It was a litmus test of its commitment to indigenous causes. This position is diametrically opposed to the stance of the FLP. Is the price of retabling the Bill in Parliament worth the inevitable result? It is a decision for the Prime Minister to make after weighing the matter in the balance. Six years after the events of May 2000 and the subsequent period, is there any purpose served by the Bill in the light of the divisions it has caused?

The relationship with the military will continue to require careful and sensitive handling. The entry of the FLP into the corridors of power should enhance its appreciation of the proper relationship between an elected Government and the armed forces. In other fora, I have stressed the point that a return to the status quo pre May, 1987 will take time. In that context, there is no substitute for continuing and meaningful consultation at the highest levels of the Government and the military. Trust is a necessary element and for that to be established, the Government has to demonstrate good faith in its dealings with the military. Without it, the recommendations in the White Paper that are being mooted will become another battleground between them. In view of their past exchanges, yesterday’s courtesy call by the Commander on the Minister for Home Affairs was a welcome sign. They must build on that event if we are to enhance stability, reassure people and assuage the fears of potential investors.

One of the major challenges for the Multiparty Government will be the civil service. At the same time the inclusion of the FLP presents an opportunity for the new Government to begin a detailed assessment and consultations on all its aspects. It is a sensitive issue because it involves livelihoods and affects entrenched interests. Yet we are faced with a paradox: an ever greater portion of the budget that is devoted to salaries and allowances is countered by declining levels of services. These levels of expenditure mean less is spent on infrastructure such as roads, water supply and electricity. But apart from that, the middle and junior levels raise serious issues about equity and fairness. Both in government and the private sector, the gap between chief executives and those at the lower rungs of their organisations is more a chasm. I do not mean to promote envy or decry success in any form, but it is cause for profound reflection in the light of widespread (and increasing) poverty and hardship in our midst.

In the recent elections, much was said about poverty and squatter settlements. The political parties made competing claims about who could do most to improve the lives of the poor. Now both major parties face the challenge together. The institutions which have not received much scrutiny, and whose operations have remained unchanged, are the Wages Councils. They each have jurisdiction for wages in respect of the particular industry they represent and comprise employers’ and workers representatives. A major study to be released next month examines their role closely. While not wishing to pre-empt its release, it concludes that the inefficient and erratic workings of the Wages Councils has adversely disadvantaged workers governed by the Wages Orders issued by these Wages Councils. This feature is said to be a contributing factor to the increasing levels of poverty. It would be straightforward to dismiss this as ‘pie in the sky economics’. We have all been weaned on the orthodoxy of constant cost reduction, particularly wages. If despite that, the numbers of those suffering poverty and hardship continue to rise the Government has to consider initiatives to reverse this scenario. Ultimately it represents a threat to peace and stability, not to mention debilitating dependence and loss of dignity.

After the upheavals of May 2000, the Caretaker Government (and the SDL Government after it) adopted the Blue Print as the bedrock of its policies. The Fijian establishment diagnosed the problems as being acquired by the perception of marginalisation by people in Naitasiri, Tailevu, Rewa and Vanua Levu. The solution was to pursue affirmative action initiatives for Fijians more aggressively and on a more expansive scale. The FLP through Mr Vayeshnoi has already signalled its position. Its leader has also been citing the Report commissioned by the Fiji Human Rights Commission which has made adverse findings. It would be wise for both the SDL and the FLP to proceed cautiously. It is possible to find common ground if appropriate changes can be agreed. No one would question having the proper checks and balances to ensure that those most in need are assisted. Initiatives for reform will be more readily conceded in hard bargaining than if it is voiced from the sidelines. Form is often as important as substance for Fijians. In engaging the SDL, the FLP must always bear that in mind.

While the Prime Minister retains ministerial responsibility for the sugar industry, it is Mr Chaudhry who retains a veto over its future by virtue of his influence and standing among cane farmers. The situation is further compounded by the impasse over the native leases and the land tenure arrangements. Through the vehicle of the Multiparty Government, there is some possibility of compromise. This will require significant concessions from the Prime Minister in the form of allowing Mr Chaudhry some say in the reform process. The Prime Minister has already extended the olive branch in giving the FLP substantive portfolios. His commitment was further demonstrated in his measured reaction to the Mr Vayeshnoi’s criticisms of some of the SDL Government policies. The question is what will Mr Chaudhry do to reciprocate? Time is against the sugar industry with the dismantling of the sugar support subsidy under the Lome Convention shortly. Whether the politician and the statesman in Mr Chaudhry can be reconciled is yet to be answered.

The expiry of leases began in 1997. Some nine years later we are still without a satisfactory solution. This scenario mirrors the restructuring of the sugar industry. First mooted in the Landell Mills Report prepared in 1991, we are only just beginning to implement a variation thereof some fourteen years or so later. Land and sugar are intensely political matters, both between the two major communities and within them too. Much of the debate has focused on whether the leases should be issued under the Agricultural Landlord & Tenant Act or the Native Land Trust Act. It matters not. What is important is that the landowners are given a fair return and the tenants adequate safeguards and security of tenure. In considering this latter aspect, some arrangement must be devised which settles this issue permanently. Otherwise we face the prospect of having these unsettling experiences every time leases expire. The potential for expansion of our agriculture industry is limited as a result. What is attempted is a piecemeal approach that does not include everyone. There has to be a concerted effort by the landowners, the Native Land Trust Board, the tenants and the politicians to negotiate an outcome all can live with. Simply restating lines in the sand serves little purpose and prolongs the impasse.

No one underestimates the challenges, rendered more acute by the tensions of working with each other. What is the alternative? Another five years of the period just passed? In some respects it makes matters clearer: there is one party in government and one in opposition. One is in. One is out. It does very little for building unity or a sense of inclusiveness. We tell each other ‘race is a fact of life’, as if that is sufficient to explain why one community should be in power and the other outside the government. Over time it is accepted as ‘the natural order’ of things because it becomes too uncomfortable and troublesome to question that. Some of us profess not to be bothered one whit by it. Others feel a lingering pain, a sadness, a hurt deep within oneself at not being given the chance to make a contribution at this level. It sends a message about what are the levels of acceptable participation. Thus far and no further. True the Multiparty Government is an exotic creature, somewhat at odds with the Westminster parliamentary system we inherited at independence. It is in the Constitution and we all have an obligation to try and make it work.

For the first time since the present Constitution was adopted in July, 1997 we have a Multiparty Government as prescribed by the Constitution. The sense of relief shown across the country speaks for itself. This is what was desired even as we voted for candidates of our own ethnicity. The goodwill generated is the reflection of the stoicism and resilience of the ordinary people of this land. Twice Fijians, reacting in part to deep fears and insecurities as well as cynical manipulation, have directed their wrath against the IndoFijian community. On each occasion, fragile and brittle relationships have been reestablished and rebuilt. For a great many, these aspersions undermine their sense of belonging and attachment here. It strengthens their resolve to go elsewhere where their skills are in demand, and their ethnicity no hindrance. Ultimately, the formation of this Government may have no bearing on a person’s decision to emigrate. Yet it has the potential and the ability to assure the non-indigenous communities that they are welcome at the highest levels of the executive. No rhetoric can match the practical affect of forming this Multiparty Government.

In the end, the fate of the Multiparty Government will depend on the capacity of the leadership of both parties’ resolve to make it work. Apart from goodwill, there must be dialogue, forbearance and trust. There has been nothing like it before. There are no shortage of doomsayers and cynics abound. I remain hopeful and optimistic. Both sides have much to gain. The Prime Minister has staked his credibility and his place in history on this Government, believing it is time for a fresh approach. The FLP can demonstrate its maturity, responsibility and reassure the Fijian people with its presence in an SDL-led Government they have nothing to fear. Political life is ultimately about the dynamics of power relationships. At this stage, neither side is willing to risk the wrath of the electorate by sabotaging the Multiparty Government. That may come later when the tensions mount, as they will. In the interim the proponents of this Government, both within and beyond the walls of Parliament, must build on the bonds and connections that have been created. These moments are a rarity in our collective experience. “Kunekune na eloka ni dilio” is a Fijian expression that captures the essence. It is a reference to a native bird so adept at hiding her eggs, they are mostly never found. Having found the egg on this occasion, what are we going to do with it? The choice is ours to make.

Joni Madraiwiwi
En\speeches\Accountants Congress 23 June 06