After several days of counting, it now appears that indigenous Fijian parties will have a majority in Fiji’s 71-seat parliament.
Many will be pleased because if Indian-dominated parties had won the election and Mahendra Chaudhry returned to the Prime ministership it would almost certainly have led to communal violence . But it would be a far too optimistic to assume a that Fiji is out of trouble.
The election followed a coup in May last year led by a George Speight against the mostly ethnic Indian Fijian Labour Party led by Mr Chaudhry and ultimately a caretaker government being installed by the military and led by Laisenia Qarase.
Mr Qarase’s party has won the most of any indigenous party, but does not have a majority in its own right. It will need support from the Conservative Alliance which is formally led by Ratu Raicuitta Vakalalabure. However, the driving force behind the alliance is Mr Speight, who is awaiting trial for treason.
It will now require a lot of goodwill and tact on the part of the newly elected politicians to avoid dangerous division within the country. Unlike, for example, an election in Australia, New Zealand or Britain, the winner who is declared Prime Minister will have difficulty saying what John Howard said after at losing the 1987 election and winning at the 1996 election, namely, that there are more things that unite us than divide us. Fiji is now a heavily divided country, and the results of these election have highlighted the divisions. The political parties – whether indigenous Fijian or Indian — who together won a virtually all the seats are ethnically based and have been at strident in expressing that base and appealing to it for support. Moderate multi-racial parties have been almost unseen.
It means that it is likely the opposition in Fiji will be Indian-dominated and the government will be dominated by indigenous Fijians. That is a different situation from it before last year’s coup and much different from the position before the original coup led by Sitiveni Rabuka in 1987. In those days, the Labour Party had a number elected indigenous Fijian MPs. The polarisation resulting from the election will cause disquiet in the Indian community if it is seen that their representatives are condemned to perpetual opposition and no effective say in power.
Under the Constitution, the President – – an indigenous Fijian — must call on the person he sees as most likely to form a majority. Inevitably, that will be Mr Qarase, even if the Labour Party has more seats than anyone else. The constitution also requires the Prime Minister to at least offer ministries to parties that get a significant number of seats. It would be worthwhile if Mr Qarase seriously considered offering Mr Chaudhry’s party some ministries in an effort to heal the racial rift in Fiji. However, it is unlikely any serious offer will made other than to comply with constitutional niceties. In any event, it is unlikely that Mr Chaudhry would accept in the ministries – – at least these are the noises that are both sides were making before the election.
Aside from this polarisation there is another dangerous possibility. Mr Qarase will have to rely on the Conservative Alliance if he wants an indigenous-only government. But the alliance wants a pardon for Mr Speight as a condition of support. Mr Qarase should resist that at all costs. If Mr Speight’s trial does not go ahead the rule of law in Fiji and its attempt to get back on the democratic road will be seriously compromised. It would be better for Mr Chaudhry to bury the hatchet and at least tacitly support a Qarase-led minority government freed from Mr Speight’s influence than to have Mr Speight or his party in government. Their actions of May last year revealed they are incapable of engaging in democratic processes.