The signs in Fiji for a return to democracy are looking very good. Developments in the past few days indicate that Fiji could return to democratic government under the 1997 Constitution quite quickly. Such a thought a month ago looked impossible. But earlier this month the Fiji Court of Appeal ruled that the coup of 19th May last year had been unsuccessful and that the Chaudhry Labour Government had been unlawfully dismissed. The court ruled also that the 1997 constitution was still in force. It seemed at the time that the court’s ruling might disappear as a meaningless piece of paper. Not so. In fact the Great Council of Chiefs and the interim administration that it had appointed took the Court of Appeal ruling seriously when they had the physical power to ignore it.
The interim administration headed by Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase resigned. However, President Ratu Josefa IloIlo rejected the resignation, calling on Mr Qarase to stay on in a caretaker role. In the meantime, the Great Council of Chiefs was left with the task of dealing with the Court of Appeal ruling. As a first step the chiefs confirmed Ratu Iloilo as President and then on Tuesday handed him a authority to deal with Fiji’s constitutional impasse. Apparently, the chiefs had been bitterly divided on what to do. The result however, is a good one because Ratu Iloilo has stated that the 1997 constitution should not be abrogated and should remain the fundamental law of Fiji.
On this basis, the President is now faced with a choice. He could reconvene Parliament and either order the reinstatement of Mehendra Chaudhry as Prime Minister or call on someone else to form a government, presumably one of national unity. Another possibility would be to order elections as soon as possible under the terms of the 1997 constitution. In the meantime, Mr Qarase would continue as it caretaker Prime Minister.
It is clear, however, that the first of those three possibilities is not practicable. The reinstatement of Mr Chaudhry would likely cause an outbreak of ethnic violence. The second possibility – – appointing someone else – – also has some difficulty. Mr Chaudhry’s deputy, Tupeni Baba, has positioned himself as a candidate to lead the Labour Party and take the Prime Ministership. Mr Baba – – who would presumably have the confidence of their majority of the Parliament – – might in theory look to be the best person to be Prime Minister. Once again, even though Mr Baba is an indigenous Fijian, they might view this prospect with sufficient alarm as to cause an outbreak of violence.
After the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government the restitution of constitutional rule is often very difficult and the status quo ante is rarely achievable. The primary aim of the President now must be the restoration of constitutional and democratic government rather than the it specific restitution of Mr Chaudhry to the prime ministership – – a move which in any event could be self defeating.
In any event, the success of Mr Chaudhry and his Indian based Labour Party at the 1999 election largely came about through fairly freakish distributions of preferences rather than an expression of overwhelming sentiment. If an election were held now it would not be repeated. That is not to countenance the overthrow of a democratically elected government rather it is to recognise that violent events in Fiji since the overthrow have meant that the most likely path to a successful return to democratic government lies in elections being held as soon as possible.
The primary task for the new government will be to restore racial harmony and ensure that both indigenous and Indian Fijians feel that they can take a full part in it the political, social and economic life of the nation.