The 2013 Constitution refers to “WE, THE PEOPLE OF FIJI” as comprising the iTaukei, Rotumans, the descendants of those who came to Fiji as indentured labourers, and those who arrived as free settlers and immigrants.
It recognises the iTaukei and Rotumans as Fiji’s indigenous communities.
And then, in the wider national context of the sovereign democratic Republic of Fiji as a State, we are all to consider ourselves as fellow “Fijians”. This national identity derives from our common and equal citizenship of our State.
As individual persons and fellow Fiji citizens, we are endowed with equal fundamental rights and obligation by the Constitution as our supreme law.
In recent days, and in conjunction with the ongoing review of the 2013 Constitution, some very senior members of the Great Council of Chiefs have expressed strong opposition to the use in Fiji’s Constitution of the title “Fijian” to be our common national identity as fellow citizens of Fiji. They want its use to be exclusively reserved for the indigenous Fijians.
When I read of these concerns by our traditional iTaukei leaders, the very first thought that came to my mind was a very moving public statement in circa 1978 by the late Archbishop Petero Mataca.
He said that irrespective of how and when we, each one us, arrived in Fiji, it is today home to us all. And as such, we have a duty of care to look after one another both as good neighbours and as fellow citizens of Fiji.
A broad perspective
I believe that this is the broad perspective from which we all should contemplate and ponder this issue. We should consider it dispassionately from an objective, impartial and inclusive approach, and not be parochially minded or emotional about it.
We should make a clear distinction between our identities as ethnic communities and as citizens of the State of the Republic of Fiji.
If we are looking at ourselves from a sociological perspective as members of a multi-ethnic society, the use of the title or name “iTaukei” for the indigenous Fijians can be strongly justified. This is because it actually and accurately embraces the two attributes that uniquely and exclusively identify an indigenous Fijian in our multi-ethnic society.
First, they were the first community to arrive and settle in Fiji. By virtue of that, they are Fiji’s first nation or iTaukei. They are entitled to this, and should be respected by everyone for it.
Second, through the Deed of Cession of 10th October 1874, Great Britain recognised the rights, under English common law, of the iTaukei to their ancestral tribal lands and associated natural resources, through custom, usage and tradition. Today, these proprietary rights in common of the iTaukei are institutionalised and protected under the iTaukei Lands Act and the 2013 Constitution [sections 28 and 30].
So, the indigenous Fijians are the iTaukei first because they were the first to arrive and settle in Fiji, and second, because they own in common 92 per cent of all lands in Fiji, and other associated natural resources.
I would urge upon the Bose Levu Vakaturaga to recall the pleas to them by Hon. Jai Ram Reddy, Leader of the National Federation Party and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, and by Hon. Mahendra Chaudhry, Leader of the Fiji Labour Party, when they each called on the BLV. They appealed to the BLV to look after the well-being and welfare of all communities in Fiji.
On our national identity, referring to ourselves as fellow “Fijians” can be justified on the ground that we are individual persons with equal fundamental civil and political rights. What binds us together is our common and equal citizenship of Fiji.
When our national representative teams in rugby, soccer, netball or athletics are playing or participating for Fiji in competitive international games, or when our Government sends a delegation to an international forum, we proudly refer to them as Fijians.
Fiji is a State party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [ICERD] 1965. All States Parties are under obligation under Article 2 not to act or practice racial discrimination against any persons or group of persons.
All this can be used to justify the usage of “Fijian” in the 2013 Constitution as our national identity.
A new approach
However, notwithstanding all I have set out above to justify or rationalise the use of “Fijian” and “iTaukei” in the 2013 Constitution, let us never forget that this Constitution was an imposition by the unelected military regime of the 2006 coup perpetrator Commander Voreqe Bainimarama. And further, the Great Council of Chiefs, the apex body of the iTaukei administration, was never consulted because Bainimarama had unilaterally abolished it.
We should also remember that the Supreme Court of Fiji has affirmed the legality of the 2013 Constitution, and also that any amendment to it can only be validly made in accordance with procedures set out in it.
Given all this, I would strongly commend to the 2013 Constitution Review Commission to take a new and bold approach on this issue.
For example, it can recommend that we rename our State from the “Republic of Fiji” to the “Republic of the Fiji Islands.”
With this change, all citizens of the Republic of the Fiji Islands can be called “Fiji Islanders” and the title “Fijian” can revert to exclusive use by the iTaukei.
If this proposed change is included in the 2013 Constitution (Amendment) Bill, it will then be considered through the democratic process of approval in Parliament by two-thirds of the MPs present and voting, and in the public referendum to follow, by a simple majority of the valid votes cast.
Jioji Kotobalavu is a former long-serving permanent secretary in the Civil Service and is currently a lecturer in public law and in international relations and diplomacy at the University of Fiji’s JDP School of Law. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of this newspaper.
