THERE is a lesson for Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in the latest polling figures coming out of the United States.
The public goodwill that brings a government to power can be considerably harder to retain.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on October 19 found that US President Donald Trump’s approval rating had fallen to 31 per cent, its lowest level during either of his presidential terms.
In the congressional midterm ballot, registered voters favoured Democratic candidates over Republicans by 47 per cent to 35 per cent, giving Democrats a 12-point national lead ahead of the November 3 election.
Economic dissatisfaction, including disapproval of Mr Trump’s handling of the economy, was a significant feature of the findings.
It is important to clarify though, that the United States and Fiji are vastly different countries, with different electoral systems, economies and political circumstances.
President Trump’s polling figures cannot be used to predict the fate of Prime Minister Rabuka’s Coalition Government.
But the political lesson is relevant to both.
Voters ultimately judge governments by the difference they make to people’s lives, not simply by the promises that brought them to power.
This is a crucial point that the current parties who make up the current Coalition, which ended 16 years of Bainimarama-led government, should consider as the country moves towards another electoral contest.
The burden of expectations
The Coalition’s victory was built partly on a promise to do things differently.
Its constituent parties offered a change in political direction, greater accountability, improved governance and a more responsive approach to the needs of ordinary Fijians.
But replacing a government is one challenge, demonstrating that a different government can deliver better outcomes is another.
Mr Trump’s current difficulties illustrate how quickly economic concerns can overshadow political messaging.
According to Reuters/Ipsos, 68 per cent of respondents disapproved of his handling of the economy, while respondents favoured Democrats over Republicans on economic management by 40 per cent to 33 per cent.
The parallel in Fiji is not that our economy mirrors America’s but rather that household experiences often carry greater political weight that a government’s explanation of its achievements.
A family struggling with food prices, a rural community without reliable water, a patient waiting for medical care or a young person unable to find secure employment may not judge government performance through speeches or policy announcements.
They judge it through their daily circumstances.
This is where opposition rhetoric becomes a liability if it is not backed by a credible implementation plan.
Promises made without the full responsibilities of government can create expectations that are difficult to meet once fiscal constraints, administrative limitations and competing priorities become apparent.
The Coalition must therefore confront a question that every incumbent government eventually faces, which is whether the change it promised became visible in the lives of ordinary people?
The VAT lesson
One of the clearest examples is the Coalition’s decision to raise value-added tax from 9 per cent to 15 per cent in August 2023, before reducing it to 12.5 per cent from August 2025.
The Government defended the original increase on fiscal grounds, pointing to the need to strengthen revenue and manage public finances. The later reduction was intended to ease cost-of-living pressures, although the Government acknowledged that it would reduce potential VAT revenue.
There are legitimate economic arguments about taxation, public debt and the funding of essential services.
A responsible government cannot promise every form of relief without explaining how it will pay for it.
The political difficulty, however, is that a government elected amid expectations of relief can lose credibility when its early decisions make daily life more expensive for the people it promised to help.
The subsequent VAT reduction demonstrated that policy can be adjusted.
But it also highlights a lesson for Mr Rabuka and future governments that difficult fiscal choices must be explained honestly, their distributional effects assessed in advance, and vulnerable households protected wherever possible.
Policy reversals are not necessarily evidence of failure, however they become politically damaging when the public is left wondering whether the original decision was adequately planned or whether the government understood its consequences.
Accountability begins at home
The Coalition also came to office promising a departure from the governance problems it associated with its predecessor.
That commitment created expectations that the institutions of state would operate within the law and that public officials would be held to high standards.
Most notable of the few legal challenges against the Government that are currently before the courts, was the High Court’s February 2026 ruling that Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka lacked the constitutional authority to advise the dismissal of former FICAC commissioner Barbara Malimali was a significant test of the Government’s commitment to constitutional accountability.
The broad lesson is that governments cannot build lasting public confidence by demanding accountability from others while treating their own decisions as beyond scrutiny.
Good intentions do not exempt political leaders from constitutional limits, and a commitment to reform is not a substitute for following due process.
Coalition unity is not the same as effective government
Another issue is the ability to turn a coalition agreement into a coherent programme of national development.
The People’s Alliance, the National Federation Party and SODELPA entered government with different constituencies and priorities.
Their cooperation made the change of government possible, but governing requires sustained agreement over budgets, policy and implementation.
Public feuds, ministerial changes and uncertainty over major initiatives can create an impression of a government reacting to political pressures rather than following a clear plan.
The lesson from any government facing declining support is that political communication cannot compensate indefinitely for inconsistent delivery.
Voters need to know who is responsible for a policy, what it is expected to be achieved and when results should become visible.
Mr Rabuka’s government would benefit from assessing its remaining commitments against clear deadlines, publishing what has been delivered and explaining openly what remains unfinished.
A transparent record is more persuasive than a general assertion that the administration has performed well.
What the PM should consider before the next election
Mr Trump’s polling difficulties are a warning about the political cost of unmet expectations but is not a forecast of Fiji’s electoral outcome.
The US midterms will be determined by individual congressional contests, just as Fiji’s next election will depend on local political circumstances, candidates, party organisation and voter choices.
Nevertheless, Mr Rabuka can draw three practical lessons.
First, prioritise outcomes over announcements.
Infrastructure spending, budget allocations and policy launches matter, but their value ultimately rests on whether services improve and household pressures ease.
Second, explain difficult decisions before they are made.
Governments will sometimes need to raise revenue, change priorities or abandon unrealistic commitments, in this case they should set out the reasons, alternatives and consequences rather than relying on political messaging after public dissatisfaction emerges.
Third, treat accountability as a condition of governing.
Legal compliance, transparent procurement, responsible appointments and credible oversight are not optional extras but are central to the public trust on which a democratic government depends.
There is also a lesson for the Opposition.
Criticising the Coalition is not enough as any party seeking office must demonstrate that its alternative policies are financially credible, administratively achievable and likely to improve public welfare. The electorate requires fewer competing promises and more meaningful comparison of plans, costs, records and results.
The verdict belongs to Fiji’s voters
Mr Rabuka’s political challenge is not simply to defend the Coalition’s record or explain why some promises have proved difficult to fulfil.
It is to demonstrate, with evidence, where the Government has made progress, where it has fallen short and what it has learnt.
The latest US poll shows that presidential authority and party loyalty do not necessarily protect a government from economic dissatisfaction.
Even though the circumstances in Fiji are vastly different, the underlying principles apply.
The Coalition should not assume that ending the previous administration’s long period in office guarantees continuing public support.
Nor should its opponents and those aspiring for elected office assume that public frustration automatically translates into votes for them.
The next election will offer voters an opportunity to assess the record and compare the alternatives.
Opposition parties win support by promising change, but stable governments retain public trust and confidence by demonstrating that the change has made a difference.
Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka takes his oath of allegiance at the State House in Suva on Saturday, December 24, 2022. Picture: SOPHIE RALULU/FILE
