The Tui Labasa Ratu Jone Qomate believes the decision to extend the use of the term Fijian to all citizens by previous government was not intended to unite the country but to undermine traditional chiefly structures.
Ratu Jone said the change was introduced by the former government without proper consultation with the people.
“The name was later imposed nationally by the former government without broad consultation with the people,” he said.
He made this comment while giving his submission to the Constitution Review Committee at the Labasa Civic Centre last month.
“It was not done to unify the nation. Rather, in my view, it was done to undermine the authority of chiefs and their people.”
He said the term Fijian had historically been associated with the iTaukei people before it was extended to all citizens.
“Indigenous people had long identified with the name and questioned why it later became a national identity for every one.
“The name was originally attributed to us, and we simply embraced it.”
He said discussions around a common national identity should be approached respectfully and through consultation with traditional leaders and communities.
“If we are to have a common identity, we must follow customs and protocols. “We should discuss these matters respectfully rather than declaring them publicly through the media.”
He also urged people who had lived in Fiji for generations to understand and respect indigenous customs and traditions.
“You want acceptance, you should follow protocol and custom.”
He said concerns raised by indigenous communities on identity issues should not automatically be labelled as racist.
“We are not racist.” In response, the constitutional review commissioner Merewalesi Nailatikau said there was a perception that the current Constitution had introduced the term without consultation.
“This is a very precious word that mentions our identity, and there is definitely a feeling that in terms of the current Constitution that we have, there was no consultation,” she said.
Ms Nalatikau said the commission had heard similar concerns in other submissions and would continue considering the issue as part of the review process.
