Elections and Stuff

As with constitutions Fiji has a proud record of sampling electoral systems. Each process has its advocates but apart from our previous Government there aren’t many fans of the Open List single electorate system. Particularly with its “sudoku” style voting sheet that left one feeling like you had just entered a bingo hall rather than a voting booth.

To give credit, the Rabuka Government have embarked on a mission to change it and that takes some integrity because the current process is designed to give incumbents every advantage. Why do you ask? Well Open List systems are all about branding and name recognition. This is why Rabuka, despite the baggage, was such an attraction to those seeking to defeat the FijiFirst Government. Right now, assuming Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum can’t run, and more on that in our next column, there are few on the political scene that can match the Prime Minister who will have the added advantage of being in power. So, as Waden Narsey pointed out in his recent Straight Talk interview kudos to the Prime Minister for taking an action that isn’t in his political self interest.

As has been highlighted by numerous commentators changing the constitution and the electoral system are intertwined. One requires the other though as Jon Fraenkel points out in his opinion piece on fijivillage, not entirely. This is Fiji so the story is never simple. The constitution specifies the Open List system and prohibits communal voting BUT the electoral legislation, that can be changed by simple parliamentary majority, provides opportunity for some change. More on that later.

First let’s look at the politics of the current process. As the Coalition Government has already discovered any moves to change the constitution immediately open themselves up to accusations and rumours about motives. This arose in the parliamentary debate and will continue to haunt then. It is a difficult to counter, particularly in this time of social media, and it leaves the Government in a difficult position. To talk about change requires either to achieve the impossible and follow the process outlined in the constitution OR go to the Supreme Court and hopefully receive a ruling that declares the constitution invalid. But as various experts have pointed out including Ms Twomey, whose opinion we shared in our last column, that will probably come with a requirement to go back to the “people”, consult widely and build yet another constitution based on an overwhelming mandate.

So…… it begs the question why go through this process of electoral reform before we sort out changing the constitution? Good question and YB is not sure the Government is particularly clear on the answer in their own minds. Of all the issues relating to the constitution VOTING is the one that spooks Fijian citizens the most and it is where certain ex politicians, and their teams of social media trolls can be most virulent.

Therefore, better to sort this issue out now so if the Supreme Court opens the way to changing the constitution a new electoral formula can be presented that hopefully puts our various fears to rest negating the fear mongering that has caused so much destruction in the past. Okay …. not a bad plan but tricky to deliver.

The first issue is timing. Elections will probably be held in the final quarter of 2026 and to bring about the change required the Government needs a satisfactory ruling from the Supreme Court, wide public consultation, a new constitution and a new electoral system in just over 12 months. Tough ask, considering how slow Government ‘legal eagles’ have moved on other critical issues in front of the Courts.

That’s not stopping Electoral Review Chair Daniel Fatiaki and his team. As he stressed in his Straight Talk interview he expects to deliver a new electoral system to Government by the end of June. Impressive, we are just not sure that it will be that simple and whether the legal arms of Government can match that pace.

Debate over electoral systems have haunted the political process in Fiji since those early talks in London leading up to the drafting of the 1970 constitution and like it or not the ghosts of these issues remain.

The fundamental issue that has changed since 1970 is the make up of our population. In 1970, the split between iTaukei and Indo Fijians was close to even but the Indo Fijian adult population was slightly higher. This led to deep seated fears that still pop up today. Put simply the iTaukei politicians wanted protection against being overwhelmed by the other communities putting issues like indigenous land ownership at risk and insisted on the communal voting system that guaranteed their sovereignty. The Indo Fijian politicians wanted a simpler one person one vote system that allowed them to take advantage of their slight numerical advantage.

Fast forward to 2025 and the situation has changed dramatically. Because the last census blocked any reference to ethnicity, we don’t have exact numbers but based on trends and other “counts” we can safely assume that the iTaukei population is currently somewhere in the 60-65% range and the Indo Fijian 35-40% (everyone else 5-8%) and the gap is widening. This should change the discussion in front of the Electoral Review Commission dramatically, but YB suspects old habits will die hard.

Voting along ethnic lines seems hard wired into our Fijian psyche and analysis of recent elections suggest, we don’t now for sure, that voting across ethnic lines i.e. iTaukei voting for Indo Fijian politicians and vice versa remains minimal with one exception. Frank Bainimarama successfully promoted himself, one can question his tactics, as a saviour of the Indo Fijians and so countered the trend. The divides didn’t stop there you could see for example Hindu politicians, even those with a very low profile, typically did better than Muslim ones (A S Khaiyum being the exception). Remember the Flower vs Dove split in the NFP.

YB would be confident that with more detailed analysis, impossible at present, but the same would apply to voting on provincial and other divides with one glaring exception. In other words, Fijians in general vote for people like themselves with one glaring exception … women, generally, didn’t vote for women.

One of the concerning features of the Straight Talk interview was that Chair Daniel Fatiaki and Commissioner Wadan Narsey shared some strong views on the kind of electoral system they wanted. This seemed a bit presumptuous considering they are yet to start the consultation process. A fact pointed out by Ro Filipe Tuisawau when he objected to them dismissing communal voting outright. We hope this doesn’t undermine the credibility of the review.

Don’t get us wrong. Around the Yellow Bucket we aren’t advocating for a return to the past BUT as we have pointed out, the demographics of Fiji have changed. Our ethnic profile is now overwhelmingly iTaukei and considering our previous point of how we tend to vote for our own protection of indigenous rights becomes less of an issue and protection of minority communities needs to be considered. We note Mr Narsey was keen to look at ways to boost female representation in Parliament and we applaud that but maybe that needs to be extended to include minority voices.

One final issue … Considering all the challenges AND the rapidly narrowing window for change pre the 2026 elections, YB suggests that the Commission needs to consider a “plan B”. Yes, deliver a proposed dream electoral system that assumes the ability to change the constitution but also consider the advice of Mr Fraenkel and look at ways in which we can, in the meantime, change the electoral legislation. He has proposed that we at least break the current single national constituency into multiple electorates. This would at least bring some level of accountability back to various regions. At present, with the way our population clusters largely between Suva and Nausori and Nadi to Ba, politicians need to only focus on these areas to win the elections.

Let the debate begin!