IT was pleasing to read the re-emergence of the concept of the “Pacific Way” of “participatory and transparent dialogue”, known also as “talanoa”, in the address by the president of COP 23, our Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, in Bonn during the launch of the COP23 process in mid-May 2017.
Pacific Way and
talanoa; significant words
His words are significant enough in today’s Fiji and to the international audience to whom he spoke, to be quoted in full as reproduced by The Fiji Times of Saturday, May 20, 2017: “Fiji will infuse COP 23 with the Fijian ‘bula spirit’ of inclusiveness, friendliness and solidarity and promote the Pacific concept of talanoa.”
While speaking to representatives from 200 countries at Bonn in Germany, Mr Bainimarama said the talanoa concept was a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue that built empathy and led to decision-making for the collective good, mostly practised in Fiji.
“It is not about finger pointing and laying blame, but is about listening to each other, learning from each other, sharing stories, skills and experiences. By focusing on the benefits of action, this process will move the global climate agenda forward.”
Similar words were also earlier used by the Fijian chief negotiator, ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan, at the same climate change meeting in Bonn.
We sit, share and respect
“Talanoa means that you sit together, you share experiences, you respect each other in the expression of different opinions, you build relationships, you settle difficulties and disputes, and during all of this you gather information.
“So we want to use this concept of talanoa to listen and learn over the next two weeks and indeed beyond that,” she said.
The phrase “the Pacific Way” was coined by Fiji’s distinguished first PM, the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara in his term as PM after independence from Great Britain. This phrase might have been coined to reflect the iTaukei traditional ways of sitting down with their elders to reflect and talk collectively on matters relating to the vanua and its people and coming to consensus decisions.
More accurately, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara in his memoir, “The Pacific Way”, outlines significant events in the development of Fiji for which the Pacific way held a special evocative meaning.
The phrase inspired his 1970 partnership with Fijian opposition leaders of Indian descent (AD Patel followed by SM Koya of the National Federation Party) on a Constitution and Independence for Fiji, where he said: “People of different races, opinion and cultures can live together for the good of all, can differ without rancour, govern without malice, and accept responsibility as reasonable people, intent on serving the interest of all.”
British colonial documents record that in August 1969, a representation from the Alliance Party and the NFP began a series of informal, confidential talks about a Constitution for Fiji, to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. In an atmosphere marked by cordiality, the leaders talked frankly and freely about their concerns and fears.
The colonial documents note that between August 1969 and March 1970, the confidential meetings identified many areas of agreement.
It is also recorded that Ratu Mara was keen to bolster his image as a multiracial leader in his multiracial Fiji: “Above all there is our fixed joint determination to build a strong and united Fiji, rich in diversity and pampered with tolerance, goodwill and understanding.” (Attributed to Ratu Mara by his successor as president, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, October 10, 2005).
Pacific Way falters,
chief persists
The “Pacific Way” faltered after the general election of 1977 but Ratu Mara’s vision of “tolerance, goodwill and understanding” persisted throughout his life. Ratu Mara continued with his practice to invite the Leader of the Opposition to accompany him to important international meetings. For example he invited both Mr SM Koya and Mr Jai Ram Reddy to sugar talks in Brussels on different occasions.
He was a strong advocate of the Agricultural Tribunal to adjudicate on expiring leases. He established the Sugar Tribunal. He included Opposition members of Parliament in Fijian delegations to the annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly.
He believed that although Government led the delegations to international conferences, Parliament should be represented at such international meetings, representing the people of Fiji, as democratic parliaments do.
The late PM had established internal processes in Fiji like the Tripartite Forum consisting of government, employees’ representatives and employers’ representatives for regular dialogue and consensus decision making processes. He believed in the power of negotiations. He was a man confident in his leadership to be inclusive where matters of the nation as a whole were up for negotiations.
I reminisce lamentably and with some nostalgia because I knew the man and worked under him as did my late father, Raman Nair CBE, LVO for many more years than me. Some might say I am embellishing the past but I lived, grew up and worked during his time.
Much negatives have been said, written and gossiped about who we once called our statesman but these negatives have never been convincingly documented. Ratu Mara was no saint but a politician, a thoughtful man with his weakness and human frailties, thinking about the future of the nation and its children.
As human beings, it is natural for us to have our own views and opinions but it is always good to test information. Unfortunately, we have not been fortunate to have many mentors but certainly Ratu Mara was one for us in terms of good governance.
I will leave with some quotes from an interview conducted in 2001, broadcast on Fijian television partially on April 30, 2001, and fully on April 29, 2004, to show the consistency of his message throughout his term in leadership positions and beyond, for the readers to ponder on, because they relate to my conclusions
(Recollection of what he was thinking to himself when confronted by the military):
1) “They want me out, they want me to abrogate the constitution and this is exactly what Speight wants and if they belong to Speight, I don’t belong to them.”
2) “If the constitution goes, I go.”
3) “I said, yes, if you think I will avoid bloodshed by standing aside I will stand aside … but I will never ever again come back.”
4) “It was the work of opportunists, crooks, thugs for their own self-gain and interest.”
5) “I had been in touch with a lot of people I thought would stand by me in the front row of the scrum, (I) didn’t know it was going to collapse.”
Democratic parliaments,
gladiatorial contests
Democratic parliaments have evolved over the years to be a gladiatorial contest between the government and the opposition parties. Perhaps unfortunately, we inherited that process from our Westminster traditions.
A democratic parliament was always meant to be a forum of representation of people’s voices because they own Parliament. Parliamentarians were elected by the people on the promise that they would serve them.
An elector is happy to see and understand that a democratic parliament is a debating forum of different ideas, different emphasis on the same ideas or different values. It is a place to debate, test out one’s ideas and views about what is best for the people, always with a listening ear but an elector would find it difficult to see their future being decided through a process of a circus or might is right.
It could be hoped that Parliament has evolved in democracies as a show place for wits for public consumption but the real work is debated or discussed more intelligently and collegially among the various parties representing the people, behind the scenes and through committee processes of Parliament or, at times even through quiet and confidential dialogue among our representatives.
After all, even a majority government should know that it was not elected by every Fijian, thousands voted otherwise.
Perhaps the tradition of gladiatorial tradition of parliamentary debate which we inherited from the British is not suitable for a small island developing country, like those in the Pacific, whose communication and dialogue traditions are so clearly different and Western concepts so alien to them. This was so clearly enunciated by Ratu Mara and now Mr Bainimarama reminds us and puts so vividly as a challenge for the world to emulate.
This process of talanoa and the Pacific Way were falteringly initiated or attempted during the 2006 to 2014 pre-election period most sincerely by the present PM with advice from his wise and then close advisers such as John Samy; a brilliant strategist, civil servant and consensus builder with a common touch, who believed in consultation and dialogue; the Pacific Way.
Sadly, many attempts at dialogue were cleverly and perhaps selfishly frustrated by some. I was a co-interlocutor in one of these processes with Dr Sitiveni Halapua. This process was followed most effectively by the excellent and earnest work done by Pio Tikoduadua under UN auspices.
Mr Tikoduadua is remembered very fondly and with great respect and affection by the participants of the process and the UN facilitators, for his genuine and honest participation, on behalf of the Government at these talanoa sessions in the true traditions of the Pacific Way but again frustrated.
PM’s reminder
Now our PM has reminded us once again and he told an international forum attended by 200 delegates from around the world about Fijian “bula spirit” of inclusiveness, friendliness and solidarity promoting the Pacific concept of talanoa.
He said talanoa was a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue that built empathy and led to decision-making for the collective good, mostly practised in Fiji. This has signalled a profound return to our roots of collectivity, collegiality and dialogue as our traditional way of communicating, discussing, negotiating, abandoned or trodden upon in the most unFijian ways by our recent history.
Many national issues continue to keep us divided in Parliament, and elsewhere such as the sugar industry, education, health, iTaukei aspirations, heritage and their traditional practices, institution and rights, land issues, processes in Parliament relating to parliamentary privileges, parliamentary committee deliberations, constitutional appointments, public interest appointments, reconciliation and others being identified continually.
Powerful local business people, the backbone of today’s investors in Fiji and significant employers, have spoken to me that they would feel much more secure and confident in their investments instead of their constant nervousness, if Fiji were to return to our own traditions of “talanoa”, especially on major matters of national importance which are still creating deep, deep divisions among our people. They want inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue.
They don’t want finger pointing and laying blame, but listening to each other, learning from each other, sharing stories, skills and experience. They want the PM to have a wider range of advice than he might be getting now, especially how Fijians feel about the mood of the nation.
There is a well-rooted view developing among Fijians that material assistance or largesse will not solve Fiji’s problems but there are yearnings for more value focussed measures to achieve a richer and a more cohesive nation.
Perhaps, after the four years of the return to democracy and its experiences, we could even contemplate the Government opening a dialogue on our Constitution in the bula spirit and the Pacific Way, after the PM’s very public reminder of who we are and how we solve problems in Fiji.
This could start with confidential dialogues among our parliamentary representatives, instead of grandstanding that may occur in in a public forum, as we did in 1969 leading to our Independence in 1970 and our first Constitution. This could lead to a feeling of greater ownership of our Constitution by the all Fijians. Let us ponder!
* Robin Nair is a former Fijian ambassador and permanent secretary of Foreign Affairs and a long-time civil servant, a lawyer and diplomat for Fiji and Australia, including a term within the United Nations system. The views expressed are his and not of this newspaper.
Mr Tikoduadua is remembered very fondly and with great respect and affection by the participants of the process and the UN facilitators, for his genuine and honest participation, on behalf of the Government at these talanoa sessions in the true traditions of the Pacific Way but again frustrated.
PM’s reminder
Now our PM has reminded us once again and he told an international forum attended by 200 delegates from around the world about Fijian “bula spirit” of inclusiveness, friendliness and solidarity promoting the Pacific concept of talanoa.
He said talanoa was a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue that built empathy and led to decision-making for the collective good, mostly practised in Fiji. This has signalled a profound return to our roots of collectivity, collegiality and dialogue as our traditional way of communicating, discussing, negotiating, abandoned or trodden upon in the most unFijian ways by our recent history.
Many national issues keep us divided in Parliament, and elsewhere such as the sugar industry, education, health, iTaukei aspirations, heritage and their traditional practices, institution and rights, land issues, processes in Parliament relating to parliamentary privileges, parliamentary committee deliberations, constitutional and public interest appointments, reconciliation and others being identified continually.
Powerful local business people, the backbone of today’s investors in Fiji and significant employers, have spoken to me that they would feel much more secure and confident in their investments instead of their constant nervousness, if Fiji were to return to our own traditions of talanoa, especially on major matters of national importance which are still creating deep, deep divisions among our people. They want inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue.
They don’t want finger pointing and laying blame, but listening to and learning from each other, sharing stories, skills and experience. They want the PM to have a wider range of advice than he might be getting now, especially how Fijians feel about the mood of the nation.
There is a well-rooted view developing among Fijians that material assistance or largesse will not solve Fiji’s problems but there are yearnings for more value focused measures to achieve a richer and a more cohesive nation.
Perhaps, after the four years of the return to democracy and its experiences, we could even contemplate the Government opening a dialogue on our Constitution in the bula spirit and the Pacific Way, after the PM’s very public reminder of who we are and how we solve problems here in Fiji.
This could start with confidential dialogue among our parliamentary representatives, instead of grandstanding that may occur in a public forum, as we did in 1969 leading to our Independence in 1970 and our first Constitution. This could lead to a feeling of greater ownership of our Constitution by all Fijians.
Let us ponder!
* Robin Nair is a former Fijian ambassador and permanent secretary of Foreign Affairs and civil servant, a lawyer and diplomat for Fiji and Australia, including a term within the United Nations system. The views expressed are his and not of this newspaper.
