The last article in this series highlighted the emergence of convergence in how Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and Opposition Leader Jai Ram Reddy thought about the fundamental principles that would guide the review of the 1990 constitution.
An earlier article discussed a number of different people of influence who nudged both leaders towards attempting to find common understandings and undertakings between the two major communities that make up this country.
I want to share how I also played a role (small as it might have been) in this regard. After returning from Japan in January 1991 with an MA, I joined USP as an academic and worked closely with the Japanese community as the first president of Monbusho Alumni.
At one of our small social gatherings in 1993, I intimated to the then Ambassador Yasunori Kikuchi that a Fiji delegation was preparing to leave for Japan, but as usual, it had no opposition representation.
I emphasised that this was a great opportunity to attempt to bring the two sides together at least physically. Those were hard times; the political environment was crackling with no concessions from either side as Rabuka fought his unending battles with the hobgoblins of 1987.
Getting opposition members into that parliamentary delegation to Japan was unthinkable. But miracles do happen and this was a time for unexpected developments – changes were in the horizon as in quick time, Harish Sharma and Jai Ram Reddy, two standout moderates, were added to that Fiji delegation to Japan.
That trip served as one of the earliest opportunities for the two diametrically opposed sides to break sushi together and make small talk on neutral ground as a prelude to sharing ideas in order to gauge if there ever would be a meeting of minds in attempting to break out of the political quagmire that Fiji had navigated itself into.
Japan, after all, is a country that culturally prizes calm, balance and respect in discourse. That parliamentary delegation was in the right place at an opportune time.
The briefing at the Japanese ambassador’s residence was most edifying as Mr Reddy and Mr Sharma shared a meal together with a few other members of that delegation. Ambassador Kikuchi deliberately seated me at his right, opposite Harish Sharma, as Mr Reddy sat directly opposite him.
In the course of making polite talk, the ambassador stated that the idea to include opposition members in that delegation to Japan originated from me.
Mr Reddy simply nodded at me, but Mr Sharma later thanked me and we spoke at length about protocols and norms in Japan.
From there onwards, numerous other informal opportunities were set up by different prominent persons as outlined in an earlier piece in this series; it was now a matter of time for the two leaders to work towards reviewing the 1990 constitution.
Both had their work cut out. A nation can be defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.
This is the end point that both Reddy and Rabuka were ultimately working towards. They wanted a constitution that would instill inclusiveness, pride, tolerance and compassion in the country that it helped craft.
The Constitution Review Commission
On 24 June, 1994, newly returned PM Sitiveni Rabuka announced a multi-ethnic Joint Parliamentary Select Committee to prepare for a review of the 1990 constitution.
Very hearteningly, this committee comprised 14 (55 per cent) Fijian and General Voter members and 11 (45 per cent) representing the Indo-Fijian community – a fair reflection of the demographics of the time.
This was a marked change from what had transpired in 1990 when two arbitrarily chosen Indo-Fijians participated as token members.
The purpose of this committee was to recommend the size of the Constitution Review Commission that would be tasked with reviewing the 1990 constitution.
In addition to this, the JPSC was also tasked to develop consensus about the content and character of the new constitution.
Subsequently, an eightmember Constitutional Review Commission was set up with New Zealander Sir Paul Reeves as its Chairman.
Sir Paul was of Maori extraction, an ex-Governor General of New Zealand, a former Anglican Archbishop and Primate of New Zealand, a UN observer of the Anglican Consultative Council and a widely respected gentleman.
When I met him in Auckland in 2011 at the launch of Jai Ram Reddy’s biography, In the Eye of the Storm, I noticed a sharp mind and a keen sense of humour.
This would have served him well in dealing with Tomasi Vakatora and Professor Brij Lal on the Commission.
I highlight this here because, in addition to being an experienced civil servant, a former Alliance Minister, Speaker of the House, and businessman, Tomasi Vakatora was also one of the architects of the 1990 Constitution.
I met him at an Asia-Pacific League for Freedom and Democracy conference in Nadi in 2007 where I presented a paper.
Tom (as Rabuka called him) appeared to be a deep-thinking, serious person who complemented this with a lighter jovial side that was very Fijian.
It should also not be forgotten that he outmuscled ultra-nationalist Sakeasi Butadroka at his own game at the 1982 elections – Vakatora was an ethno-nationalist. Professor Brij Lal, on the other hand, was a committed indo-Fijian who was also an accomplished historian.
His writings on girmit and the history of the Indo-Fijians is legendary. He was also an internationally acclaimed academic.
He understood intimately, having grown up in Fiji until he graduated from USP, how the Indo-Fijian felt about his presence in Fiji.
He also had firsthand knowledge of Indo-Fijian anxieties and aspirations. Brij Lal was a historically immersed Indo-Fijian.
In addition to these three gentlemen, prominent Fiji lawyer Jon Apted and retired executive director of the New Zealand Law Reform Commission, Alison Quentin-Baxter, were chosen to provide legal counsel.
Walter Rigamoto, a former supervisor of elections, was chosen to provide administrative support as Secretary to the Constitution Review Commission of 1995.
Path to a New Constitution
The Joint Parliamentary Select Committee had its hands full in attempting to develop consensus about the content and character of the new constitution. Land was one point of contention. The character of representation in parliament was another.
Readers will recall that the 1990 constitution ensured Fijian paramountcy partly through overwhelming numerical dominance in Parliament.
A key point that is particularly relevant to this series was the contention that Indo-Fijians were entitled to remain in the country of their birth, to work and prosper, but never to aspire for political leadership.
The Methodist Church demanded that Fiji be declared a Christian state.
The eagerlyawaited SVT submission to the constitutional review commission stated that “what is desirable in the interests of all communities in Fiji, and to help promote multi-racial harmony and national unity in Fiji, is to make (the provisions of the 1990 constitution) more considerate of the position and sensitivities of all communities in Fiji’s multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society”.
For this to happen, it was imperative that the control of Parliament and government remain in indigenous Fijian hands, the Great Council of Chiefs be given a prominent constitutional and national role, along with a constitutional guarantee for affirmative support programs for the Fijian and Rotuman communities.
Furthermore, Fijian language, customs and culture should be taught as examinable subjects at least until Form Six in all schools in Fiji. It was a mixed bag that had both foresight as well as a hopeless entanglement with the past.
The slant of SVT thinking becomes clear when one moves to the following abstract from their submission: “with what (the Indo-Fijians) are now demanding, particularly the barrage of abuse and condemnation of Fijian aspirations, it is obvious that the professed spirit of goodwill has been forgotten.”
The search for common understandings and undertakings clearly appeared beyond our reach at that point in time.
So how did the miracle happen and what were its implications? This is what we will explore in the next article in this series.
• DR SUBHASH APPANNA has been writing occasionally on issues of historical and national significance. This series was triggered by a recent reference to Fijians of Indian Descent as vulagi by an aspiring politician. The views expressed in this article are his alone and not those of The Fiji Times or his employer.
