OVER decades, one of the more difficult questions in Fiji’s political history has been where the role of the military ends and the authority of an elected civilian government begins.
This is an issue which is again at the centre of the recent constitutional debate, this time through the proposed changes to the constitutional role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF).
The Government’s proposed provisions are largely in line with the model put forward by the Constitution Review Commission (CRC), with the biggest change being the move away from the broad language of the 2013 Constitution towards a more clearly defined military role.
Under the 2013 Constitution, Section 131(2) states that it is the RFMF’s “overall responsibility” to ensure “at all times” the “security, defence and well-being” of Fiji and all Fijians.
The proposed provision, contained in Section 151 of the Government’s draft Constitution, now takes a noticeably different approach – the RFMF would be responsible for the defence and protection of Fiji’s sovereignty and territorial integrity from external threats. Its support for civilian authorities would be limited to specified purposes and periods under written law.
In the case of natural disasters or a state of emergency, the RFMF could assist only when authorised by Cabinet, and only on the request of the appropriate civilian authority and to the extent specified in that request.
The Commander would also be expressly subject to the direction of Cabinet through the responsible Minister.
Put simply, the proposed wording tries to answer a question that the 2013 Constitution left much more open: What exactly is the military there to do, and who ultimately directs it?
Narrower mandate
Associate Professor Sandra Tarte of the University of the South Pacific described the proposed change as significant because it addresses what she sees as ‘ambiguity’ surrounding the military’s so-called guardianship role.
She also pointed out an important detail where the RFMF itself had called for greater constitutional clarity and for its primary role to be defined around external defence.
This is a significant position when read alongside the National Security and Defence Review (NSDR).
The NSDR identified the broad wording of Section 131(2) as one of the issues affecting public confidence in the military.
It examined the legacy of the coups, the expansion of the RFMF’s constitutional mandate and the need to rebuild public trust in security institutions.
The review also called for the RFMF’s primary role to be clarified as the defence of Fiji against external threats and its service to the democratically elected government.
Former RFMF Army Legal Services Principal Legal Officer and commissioned Major, Navneel Sharma pointed out that the biggest legal change was not necessarily what the new Constitution added, but what it took away.
The words “overall responsibility”, “at all times” and “well-being” in Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution created a very broad formulation.
Sharma shared that “well-being” was not a conventional military function and that “at all times” contained no obvious limitation.
“That could potentially allow the military to see itself as having a constitutional responsibility to intervene whenever it believed the country’s national well-being was at risk.”
The proposed wording is much more specific.
Rather than giving the military a broad responsibility for the country’s security and well-being, it sets out what the RFMF is responsible for — principally defence against an external threat — and then establishes conditions for when it can assist civilian authorities domestically.
“The difference is between being a “guardian” and being a disciplined service of the State, which goes to the heart of Fiji’s long-running debate about the military’s place in the political system,” Sharma said.
Civilian control affirmed
Another major change is the relationship between the Commander of the RFMF and the civilian government.
Under the 2013 Constitution, the Commander has responsibility for exercising military executive command. But the provision does not expressly state that the Commander is subject to Cabinet direction in exercising that command.
The proposed Constitution does.
It says the Commander is responsible for exercising military executive command but is subject to the direction of Cabinet through the responsible Minister.
Sharma highlighted this as the clearest constitutional statement yet of civilian control over the military.
The NSDR had already pointed in this direction, recommending stronger civilian oversight and clearer policy responsibility within the defence and security system.
The chain is therefore easier to understand; Cabinet provides political direction through the responsible Minister, while the Commander retains responsibility for military command.
It is vital, however, to clarify that civilian control does not mean Cabinet would be running military operations as the Commander would still exercise military executive command.
What the new wording does is establish, at constitutional level, who has authority to give direction.
Sharma, who is a university law lecturer, does raise a question about the breadth of that wording.
“The proposed provision simply says the Commander is subject to “direction” from Cabinet through the Minister. By comparison, the constitutional provision dealing with the Police Commissioner distinguishes between operational matters and general policy directions from the Minister.”
That leaves an issue for future legislation and practice: what exactly would “direction” cover in the case of the RFMF?
What happens when there
is a disaster?
This is where the proposed changes become particularly practical.
Fiji regularly relies on the RFMF during cyclones, floods, emergencies and other disasters. Soldiers can provide manpower, logistics, engineering capability and other support when civilian resources are stretched.
The proposed Constitution does not remove that role.
Instead, it places conditions around it.
In the case of a natural disaster or state of emergency, Cabinet must authorise the RFMF’s assistance. There must also be a request from the appropriate civilian authority, and the military must act only to the extent specified in that request.
Vani Catanasiga, executive director of the Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS), said this was an important clarification to make because humanitarian responses were not simply about getting people and equipment to a disaster zone.
They are also about accountability, community participation and protecting the rights of vulnerable people.
“FCOSS had previously raised concerns about the need for greater clarity around the RFMF’s role in disaster coordination and response,” she said.
Her concern is that, during a crisis, the military’s command-and-control structure can naturally become dominant because it has the personnel, resources and ability to act quickly.
“That can create an imbalance between military and civilian agencies, particularly when civilian authorities, community organisations and humanitarian groups are expected to work within rights-based and community-centred systems.”
Catanasiga is not arguing against RFMF involvement.
Rather, she stressed its involvement should remain within a clearly defined civilian-led framework.
That approach also fits with the wider philosophy of the NSDR, which placed national security within a broader whole-of-government and whole-of-society framework, including government agencies, civil society and other stakeholders.
Cabinet or parliament?
There are, however, some questions that still need to be worked through.
Sharma pointed to a difference between the CRC’s recommendations and the wording that has emerged in the Government’s draft.
The CRC had recommended that domestic assistance by the RFMF be authorised or confirmed by Parliament. The Government’s draft instead provides for Cabinet authorisation, with Parliament’s role to be set out through legislation.
There is a practical argument for Cabinet being able to act quickly, particularly after a cyclone or other major disaster.
But there is also a constitutional accountability question about how Parliament should oversee the use of military power inside the country.
Sharma suggests one possible way of addressing this could be Cabinet authorisation for immediate action, followed by prompt reporting to Parliament.
There is also a drafting issue relating to a provision dealing with support to civilian authorities referring to “written law”, while the disaster and emergency provision refers specifically to an “Act of Parliament”.
Those are not necessarily the same standard.
“This should be clarified so that the provisions do not create an easier route for domestic military deployment through a lower form of law,” Sharma said.
Another unanswered question is who exactly constitutes the “appropriate civilian authority”.
That could be the National Disaster Risk Management Office, Police, a relevant ministry or another agency, so the legislation that follows the Constitution will need to make this clear.
Wording is important, but is not everything
Perhaps the biggest caution coming from the experts is that changing the Constitution will not, by itself, change institutional culture.
Tarte makes this point strongly.
“Changing the key constitutional provision may not automatically alter how the RFMF operates, particularly given the level of institutional autonomy it has developed over time,” she said.
The geopolitics expert also pointed to the need for stronger independent oversight and transparency, including scrutiny of military expenditure and more importantly, that the change in constitutional wording be accompanied by a wider cultural shift in both the military and society.
Dr Shailendra Singh, Associate Professor and Head of Journalism at USP, made a similar point.
He sees the proposed amendment as significant because it removes the constitutional basis for interpreting the military as having a role in civilian or political affairs.
But he questioned whether constitutional wording is sufficient to prevent future military interventions or military strikes.
His argument is that the politicisation of militaries does not happen, or become embedded, overnight, and neither can depoliticisation be achieved or guaranteed simply by constitutional amendment.
“Examples from some other parts of the world indicate that depoliticisation doesn’t happen at the stroke of a pen or through a constitutional amendment alone,” said Singh.
It requires sustained institution-building and education for instilling consistent understanding within the military that it is a democratic institution under an elected civilian government.
Singh was an editorial board member of the NSDR led by former RFMF chief of staff, Jim Sanday and included Professor Satish Chand and Assistant Professor Ana Rokomokoti.
The NSDR review highlighted the RFMF’s need to rebuild confidence after the legacy of political intervention and human rights concerns associated with past periods of military rule.
That makes the proposed constitutional amendment one part of a broader reform process.
According to Singh, a broader process should also include Fiji looking beyond its borders to other militarized countries, or countries with politicized militaries, to better understand the phenomenon, including what the de-politicization process might entail.
“In our Asia-Pacific region, Indonesia is a fairly good example of a country trying to depoliticize its military and the challenges associated with it,” said Singh.
“Indonesia is particularly relevant, having undertaken military reforms since the fall of Suharto in 1998 to reduce the military’s political role.”
Singh said India, as an apolitical, professional military under civilian control, was another potential useful case study for Fiji.
Bigger security reform
Seen alongside the NSDR, the proposed constitutional changes also form part of a wider attempt to rethink Fiji’s security architecture.
While the review recommended changes to defence legislation, stronger civilian policy oversight and a clearer definition of the RFMF’s role, the Government’s proposed constitutional provisions have now provided the constitutional foundation for much of that approach.
The proposed changes will move the RFMF from the broad 2013 constitutional mandate of safeguarding Fiji’s security, defence and well-being “at all times” to a more clearly defined role centred on external defence, with domestic and disaster assistance subject to legal and civilian controls.
Ultimately, the Constitution can set the boundary, but legislation, oversight, institutional culture and political practice will determine how firmly that boundary is respected.
