What is wrong with the idea of a People’s Charter

A very well written article written by Shailendra Raju in todays Fiji Times:

ON the face of it, there is nothing wrong with the idea of a people’s charter and a national council for building a better Fiji. I must say though that I prefer a people’s version of the Constitution, written and explained in terms that will inspire, educate and inform citizens and create a sense of shared nationhood.

But there seems little likelihood of this happening when the interim regime is so fanatically determined to make sure its People’s Charter becomes the dominant ideology for shaping Fiji’s destiny.

As the regime struggles to get the charter moving, it is coming up against some real problems, profound skepticism and a mounting volume of questions.

Not the least of these is the massive discrepancy between the aims of the charter, as so far explained, and the actual performance of the government.

The charter’s framework document circulated earlier in the year, places heavy emphasis on the ideals of good, open governance and accountability to the people. It identifies corruption as one of the nation’s ills while ignoring the international acknowledgement Fiji gained for its efforts to curb it.

The document also loses credibility when it lapses into Labour party propaganda about the so-called state of the nation. This immediately stamped it as politically partisan, rather than independent.

While the authors pontificate about building their utopia and the interim Prime Minister speaks endlessly about his vision of a new, well-managed Fiji, a very different story has unfolded since December 5 last year. It is one of extremely bad governance that bears no relationship to the lofty goals set out for the People’s Charter. This has led to a severe deficit of trust. There has been a consistent lack of transparency, abuse of human and constitutional rights, lawlessness, intimidation and the spreading of fear, failure to follow due process and interference with the process of the judiciary.

Blatant nepotism is also part of the new order. Coup supporters, including military personnel, have been appointed to key positions to reinforce the interim Government’s grip. This is particularly evident in the sugar industry now under the control of the Labour leader Mahendra Chaudhry.

Labour people were elevated to leadership of the Sugar Cane Growers Council after the shameful and cruel treatment of Jagannath Sami. A close associate of Mr Chaudhry, who did not appear to be qualified, went into the Ministry of Sugar.

Mr Chaudhry has been allowed by Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama to get away with a clear conflict of interest. He has held on to his post as general secretary of the National Farmers Union, a leading cane farmers organisation, while exercising ministerial authority for the entire sugar industry.

Mr Chaudhry has so far refused to resign from his NFU post in defiance of all the norms of good governance. His responsibility is to promote the overall interests of the sugar industry, as represented by the millers, farmers, landowners and the government.

How can he do this when he leads a union dedicated to the welfare of the farmers? What is in the interests of the farmers may not be best for the other stakeholders. Why is Commodore Bainimarama condoning such abuse of office by one of his senior ministers? Why is he not applying the standards of governance called for in the charter?

This is not the worst. Since July, the media have been running stories and editorials about serious tax evasion by a Cabinet minister, who is known to me.

This is not a minor, one-off lapse. There is evidence of significant and systematic tax avoidance. According to some reports, the minister, who holds a vital portfolio, accumulated bank deposits to the tune of $1.5million in Australia. Unexplained wealth disproportionate to earnings is always regarded as a sign of corruption. By any measure of accountability, the minister should step down from office and be subject to a full inquiry. There is also a strong argument that Commodore Bainimarama already has enough evidence to conclude that the minister is not a fit person to continue in office and should therefore, give him the choice of resigning or face dismissal.

If Fiji had been under parliamentary rule, the minister would have been out of office by now. It matters not that the minister may have settled with the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority (FIRCA). This is about integrity, suitability and fitness for a Cabinet position.

The question of the overseas deposits and where they came from must be dealt with. Members of the public, naturally, are concerned about the different and discriminatory treatment given to deposed Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki over tax allegations levelled against him.

The Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption did not hesitate to act against Justice Fatiaki but it is apparently not taking any action against the minister, despite evidence provided to it. So far, Commodore Bainimarama has failed to provide the leadership required for dealing with the scandal. His response is to pass the buck to FIRCA, which says it can do nothing. If the Commodore wants to show he is serious about the good governance provisions envisaged in the charter, he must lead by example and act decisively to deal with this running sore on his government. If he does not, people will draw their own conclusions and the entire basis for the People’s Charter will be further eroded and probably fatally damaged. This issue is not about to go away.

The concept of the charter is already in trouble. It is the centre of suspicion and often bitter, disagreement. Important sections of society are expressing their opposition. In fact, it is unlikely the project will get majority support unless the interim regime transforms its approach and attitude. Without popular backing through the participation of influential elected leaders such as Laisenia Qarase, the charter will have no political validity.

Commodore Bainimarama is aggressively resisting this idea because his judgement is clouded by his dislike of Mr Qarase. My advice to the Commodore is that it is time now for some constructive engagement with the man he overthrew. I am very much aware that Mr Qarase is quite prepared for dialogue. This would be welcomed by the majority of the people of Fiji as well as the international community and Pacific Islands Forum that are monitoring Fiji’s progress back to elections. If he sets his mind to it, Commodore Bainimarama may find that meeting with Mr Qarase may not be that difficult. He has an opportunity here to show some true statesmanship and repair his image and that of his government. Given agreement for Mr Qarase’s membership of the NCBBF, the prospects of a national consensus on the charter would be immediately enhanced. This would pave the way for a broad-based political settlement to Fiji’s crisis. If this is not accomplished, Commodore Bainimarama’s dream of the charter becoming the authoritative doctrine and vision for Fiji’s future will not be realised.

From Mr Qarase’s perspective he will require the support of his SDL Party which gained just more than 80 per cent of Fijian votes last year, to join the NCBBF. He will be aware of the danger of alienating his constituency by seeming to be too accommodating to Commodore Bainimarama. I know Mr Qarase has the skill and judgement to get the right balance.

Resistance to the charter was always inevitable given the deep division, unhappiness and resentment created by Commodore Bainimarama’s takeover by force of a legally elected government, and some of his regime’s subsequent unpopular decisions. Any proposal from the Commodore will inevitably attract significant opposition.

These difficulties are being compounded by the regime’s mismanagement of the project. It keeps shooting itself in the foot. The self-inflicted damage relates to confusing and conflicting public comments, and the ominous language and sentiments of the charter’s framework document.

The information I received from sources is that, as a result, many citizens have genuine fears about the true purpose of the charter. One has only to study the news media to get a general sense of this disquiet. Much of the blame must be laid at the door of the interim Prime Minister and the army.

Some of their statements have created the impression that they see the charter as a means of imposing their will on the people. Military spokesman Lt-Colonel Mosese Tikoitoga was very clear about this in The Fiji Times of November 14. He saw the need, in the process of gaining acceptance of the charter, of “forcing people to change their mindset”. He did not spell out exactly how it would be achieved.

It is easy to laugh at such thoughts but in Fiji’s situation they cannot be dismissed, especially in light of the military’s power in government, its obsessive preoccupation with the charter and apparent readiness to suppress dissent.

I remind myself Commodore Bainimarama has said the military is all-powerful. As an extension of this thinking, it would appear the military council is the real source of authority in Fiji at the moment.

Lt-Col Tikoitoga should also clarify what he meant in The Fiji Times that the charter would prohibit “allegedly corrupt people” from contesting the next election.

He spoke of leadership by “the right people with the right mind”, presumably referring to those who meet the approval of the military.

How exactly would the charter “prohibit” those suspected of corruption from becoming candidates and ensure that only leaders with the “right” mind were elected? What legal power will the charter have to accomplish this? There is more than a hint the military sees the charter as a substitute for the Constitution despite its claim that the supreme law of the land will not be abrogated.

The army could help to calm public unease and smooth the path of the charter if it gave a firm commitment that it would not interfere in the deliberations of the NCCBF and will, from now on, respect and accept the election verdicts of the people.

When he is talking about the charter from a script, Commodore Bainimarama tends to sound relatively reasonable and mildly conciliatory, even though conciliation does not come naturally to him. In a written statement recently he was virtually pleading for people with doubts about the charter, to take part in its work. He said he wanted to hear opposing views on it and to have wide consultations but when he makes comments off the cuff, a different and more threatening personality often emerges, one that is dictatorial and intolerant of dissent. Then he tends to lash out angrily at critics of the charter and of his government generally.

Indicative of this trait was his comment that the regime “dictates terms and no one is going to tell us what to do”.

I assume this will not be his attitude in the discussions of the NCBBF. His statement that Mr Qarase and his SDL Party would not be allowed to contest the election sparked wide concern in Fiji and abroad. The Commodore had to backtrack on this threat when he faced a united front of Pacific leaders at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga but shortly after, in an impromptu remark to reporters, he insisted that Mr Qarase would not be allowed to become a candidate because he would be automatically removed from the election by the charter. Commodore Bainimarama has never given a satisfactory explanation of his remark. It has become another shot into the regime’s foot, heaping confusion on uncertainty and further increasing public concerns. Those who accept invitations to join the NCBBF will undoubtedly want new assurances that the People’s Charter will not supersede the Constitution and become an instrument of coercion.

Even the origins of the charter have become controversial. Questions were raised by Mick Beddoes, the former Opposition leader, about the authors of the charter. He felt the charter gurus were John Samy, a former Fiji economist and Francis Narayan, previously an accountant with the Fiji Electricity Authority.

Both of them now live in New Zealand but visit Fiji and are thought to be influential with the interim regime and the military council. It appears that Mr Narayan has just been appointed chairman of the Fiji Trade and Investment Bureau another example of nepotism, inconsistent with the principles Mr Narayan advocates in the People’s Charter. If Mr Narayan and Mr Samy were the first authors of the charter, they should take responsibility for some of the bizarre and arrogant thinking in the document. The Prime Minister’s office downplayed their role, saying the charter came from its office. Meanwhile, Lt-Col Tikoitoga said on radio that the charter was the Commodore’s brainchild. He initiated it and brought the idea to the military council where it was debated. The people of Fiji are entitled to know precisely how the charter proposal came into being.

Those who wrote the draft, whoever they were, and developed the thinking for the charter which was distributed in May, must be accountable for some of the difficulties it faces.

From the way it is written, the authors consider it to be a binding commitment for future governments. This is completely anti-democratic and authoritarian. There is also reference to a timeframe of 15 to 20 years for the measures in the charter to become an established part of Fiji’s national life. Again this totally ignores the rights of elected governments and leaders to bring into effect their own plans for the governance of Fiji. It is not the function of an interim administration to try to set out a 20-year plan for the nation. Let the NCBBF confine itself to broad principles guided by the Constitution and put these forward as recommendations to be debated by Parliament and accepted if they get majority support. That is how democracy works.

There are many other doubts about the intent of the council and the charter. What is meant, for instance, by the oft-repeated expression ‘a non-racial Fiji’? It appears members of the council may be expected to give their approval to some form of social and cultural engineering designed to eradicate race from the face of Fiji. This sounds ominously like a new kind of ethnic cleansing.

Mr Chaudhry disclosed his thinking when he wrote about a homogeneous Fiji. He is confused. A homogeneous society is one in which everybody is the same. That is absolutely not the case in Fiji. Our country is made up of many ethnic groups. We are multi-racial, as many countries are. So how, specifically, would Mr Chaudhry propose to change this? The interim Prime Minister contradicts the Chaudhry doctrine when he talks about a culturally vibrant country. Culture is connected to ethnicity and origin. If Commodore Bainimarama sees a country built on cultural vibrance he must, by definition, see a Fiji of different ethnic origins. That would not be homogeneous and “non-racial”.

It is clear to me that the charter thinking on ethnicity, at this stage, is inexcusably flawed.

Fiji is reminded regularly, by the interim Prime Minister and the army that the charter’s aim is to build a “truly democratic Fiji”. But not once have they tried to describe what they mean by this. The structures and methods of democracy vary. How it is practiced in Samoa, for instance, bears no relationship to our own democratic system. The common feature of all democratic processes, however, is that they are freely supported by the people without coercion and intimidation. The voters have the right to elect and change a government.

The framework document has no reference to the future role of the military. This is a remarkable and telling omission. How can the NCBBF perform any kind of useful role without a full and searching debate about the army and its coup culture? This issue is pivotal to where Fiji goes from here. Surely, this could not have escaped Messrs Samy and Narayan and others who developed the concept.

I find it astonishing that there is no reference to the new age of politics that was ushered in by the formation last year of Fiji’s first multi-party, multi-ethnic Cabinet genuinely representative of all of Fiji’s communities. This historic breakthrough has been ignored and cast aside completely by the authors of the charter and the military. People are entitled to ask, why?

The public is being led to believe that the council and the charter will somehow change the electoral system. This has been strongly hinted at on a number of occasions but the council would have no power at all to effect such change. Any move to do this would have no demonstrated popular support and be against the law.