Serious students of English will be wondering how this term “oxymoron” (which deliberately pairs two contradictory or opposing words side by side), could apply to a serious organisation like Dialogue Fiji that has such a large presence in Fiji funded by international organisations.
But Nilesh Lal (executive director of Dialogue Fiji) has been publicly (The Fiji Times, July 19, 20 – 2026) contesting the electoral recommendations of the 2025 Fiji Electoral Law Reform Commission (2025 FELRC) which was chaired by a former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki and comprising Professor Wadan Narsey, Seini Nabou and Deidre Brookes, all with decades of relevant “lived experience” in the subject matter.
The 2025 FELRC Report was titled: “An Electoral System for the People From the People”. It was unfortunately embargoed for unknown reason(s) but, the 2026 Constitution Review Commission (CRC) with its Terms of Reference which also includes the need for electoral reform, has been publicly hearing and airing the views of Chairman Daniel Fatiaki and Professor Wadan Narsey.
The CRC members have all received the full Report of the 2025 FELRC including its numerous Annexes of community submissions gathered throughout Fiji. Media organisations like Fiji Village and FBC have also given full coverage to their views.
Nilesh Lal will also have read at least two comprehensive The Fiji Times articles by Professor Narsey (April 9, 2026 and July 18, 2026) which fully document how the 2025 Proportional Open List Constituency System (2025 POLCS) (“An Electoral System for the People From the People”) was directly responding to what the FELRC Team were told by Fiji citizens in the three months of consultations undertaken all over Fiji.
What the Fiji public told the 2025 FELRC
The Fiji public told the 2025 FELRC (and the accompanying technical staff from the Fiji Law Reform Commission and Fijian Elections Office) what they disliked about the current electoral system which was unilaterally imposed under the 2013 Constitution and, just as importantly, the Fiji public told us what they wanted in a better, simpler electoral system.
It is therefore utterly astonishing that the executive director of Dialogue Fiji baldly and abstractly claims “Fiji’s current electoral system delivers a more accurate reflection of voters’ choices than the proposed Proportional Open List Constituency System (POLCS) being considered during constitutional reform”.
Nilesh Lal’s so-called justification for his incredible conclusion is that the existing 2013 Electoral System produced an “exceptionally proportional” outcome in the past three elections held under the 2013 Constitution.
In contrast, Nilesh Lal without accessing the full and complete FELRC report, dubiously alleges that the 2025 POLCS “…. cannot guarantee proportional representation … could increase wasted votes, make constituency boundaries politically significant again, favour geographically concentrated parties over dispersed support, and potentially require Parliament to expand if overhang seats are created”. We comment on the last bit later.
While Nilesh Lal correctly notes that the 2025 POLCS promises local MPs, greater women’s representation and simpler voting, he asserts without any proof or illucidation that “… many of those objectives conflict with one another”.
It is extremely unfortunate that he blithely ignores what the people of Fiji want or think about the need for electoral reform of the existing system to ensure a more genuine, accountable parliamentary democracy.
Instead, the executive director of Dialogue Fiji is fixated upon some hypothetical arithmetical proportionality which the people of Fiji would have little understanding of, or care for, or even, the slightest interest in.
He might like to ask himself and answer, the simple question: Has he ever had any actual dialogue or public consultations with ordinary voters not just in urban areas but also in talanoa sessions in the rural villages and settlements around Fiji, in all the vernaculars?
If he has not, then we suggest that Dialogue Fiji is an oxymoron indeed: Dialogue Fiji’s “dialogue” is not with Fiji people but we suspect, within his own thought bubble and those invited to the occasional talkfests at expensive venues like the GPH.
In this article, we briefly outline yet again — what the people of Fiji did not want, what they did want, but also how the 2025 POLCS will try to encourage proportionality where we are thinking along the same lines as Dialogue Fiji.
We will also briefly discuss the possible rare need for “overhang seats” that Nilesh Lal elevates to an “ogre” threatening the whole electoral system.
At the outset it is really important to understand that the 2025 FELRC’s Report was responding directly to the Terms of Reference set by the Fiji Law Reform Commission, including one essential TOR for community consultations.
The FELRC Terms of Reference
The TOR set by the Fiji Law Reform Commission (FLRC) clearly indicate that they already had a fair idea of what was wrong with the 2013 Electoral System and Electoral Laws.
A careful rereading of our TOR by Nilesh Lal would have been beneficial to him before putting pen to paper.
The TORs stipulated that any recommended electoral system:
(a) should uphold the principles of democracy and good governance, equality, inclusion, and fairness;
(b) promote the representation of women by the inclusion of Special Measures; which comply with Fiji’s obligations under international law, including CEDAW;
(c) strengthen the accountability of elected representatives to voters;
(d) review the restrictions placed on civil society actors, review the powers of the Supervisor of Elections, electoral offences and penalties;
(e) (above all) carry out community-wide consultations.
(There is no mention of any need whatsoever for “strict arithmetic proportionality”).
The public complaints about
the current system
In our dozens of community-wide consultations throughout Fiji, not just in English but also in the iTaukei and Hindustani languages, the FELRC Team found that voters consistently complained:
(a) about the confusing Sudoku style ballot paper with hundreds of random numbers with no candidate name or picture, and no party names or symbols;
(b) the absence of an identifiable local MP who would be accountable to the voters in his/her local community;
(c) the gross unfairness of a system which allowed candidates with a couple of hundred votes to become MPs under the massive votes cast for their party leader, while others in different parties, with thousands of votes were excluded by the 5 per cent threshold requirement;
(d) the unreasonable requirements for registration of Political Parties; criminalisation and excessive penalties for minor infractions; the excessive powers of some electoral officials;
(e) many other criticisms outlined in the full Report of the FELRC.
Unless addressed through system changes, these glaring weaknesses are all still there in the existing 2013 electoral system and will again become prominent for the next election due in a few months’ time, regardless of Nilesh Lal’s glowing endorsement.
What did the public want from the electoral system?
If Dialogue Fiji and Nilesh Lal carry out genuine dialogue and consultations with the public of Fiji over the next few months, the voters will tell them that they still want:
(a) their own local constituencies and MPs accountable to them;
(b) simple ballot papers with candidate names, party symbols, and photographs of candidates.
(c) simple voting with ticks (no complicated preferences)
(d) transparent counting of ballot papers at the local constituency centres;
Nilesh Lal might be surprised to hear numerous ordinary citizens telling them that the 2013 Constitution should be thrown out the window in its entirety, if it prevents the electoral improvements that the people want.
A very small minority of voters (Nilesh Lal and ourselves included) would like to see some proportionality at the national level BUT we also feel strongly that the other democracy-enhancing elements must be first put in place.
We can assure Nilesh Lal that he will not find too many ordinary citizens around Fiji, if any at all, demanding strict arithmetic proportionality in the electoral outcomes.
The 2025 POLCS
It needs to be emphasised to Dialogue Fiji that the 2025 POLCS responds first and foremost to what the people and voters of Fiji wanted from their electoral system namely, their own locally accountable MPs.
The 2025 POLCS therefore delivers (a) 25 Open Constituencies (with five Maritime ones), with no ethnic requirement for candidates or voters;
Then, to ensure it met its TOR for special measures for women, the FELRC added the second major component in its proposed electoral system: (b) 25 Reserved Seats for Women in the same 25 constituencies, with all voters voting and only women standing.
(With the same number of RSV seats, there would be no extra work involved for the Fijian Elections Office in determining special boundaries for the RSW. This would also be a temporary measure until women candidates begin to stand and win in the 25 Open constituencies).
There will therefore be 50 local MPs in 25 constituencies which the majority of the people of Fiji would be quite happy about.
(Completely absent currently, every voter would know exactly who their two local MPs were, with every single woman voter also now having a woman MP who they could go and see for their needs).
Simple voting and transparent counting
It is tragic that Nilesh Lal does not see that 2025 POLCS delivers the voters the simple voting and transparent counting that they long for.
Each and every voter would get two ballot papers, one for the Open Constituency, and one for the RSW.
Each ballot paper will have the names, party symbols (including Independents) and photos of all the candidates for that constituency alone. i.e. probably less than 15. (read the paragraph on the coming elections nightmare at the end of this article).
The counting for the 50 local MPs would be on the basis of First Past the Post and can be and should be decided by the FEO at the local constituency centres, in front of candidates, party agents, media representatives and voters themselves. Simple piles of ballot papers associated with each candidate would be clearly observable and the counting visible and easily verifiable.
(There will be no preferences to count and recount, causing great confusion in the public mind, as used to happen with the 1997 Constitution).
While the First Past the Post system has its weaknesses, the benefits of its simplicity far outweigh any small weakness which will be in any case compensated by the proportionality through the List MPs.
Adding the proportionality
There has been a singular failure to understand the immense advantage to the 2025 POLCS of adding 21 MPs to be elected from the Open List, by Dialogue Fiji alleging that the system is “… mathematically incomplete, internally contradictory and incapable of reliably delivering its central promise of national proportionality”.
We remind Nilesh Lal that the 2025 POLCS does not have national proportionality as its “central promise”. It is merely an added bonus to the other pro-democracy benefits.
The central benefits offered by the 2025 POLCS are as we have listed above: 50 locally accountable MPs (including 25 Reserved Seats for Women) guaranteeing genuine accountable democracy, simple voting and counting and 25 Reserved Seats for Women
The small possibility of “overhang” seats
Of course there is a small possibility that some parties may win far more constituency seats than they are entitled to at the national level (as Nilesh Lal dramatically warns).
But this is extremely unlikely given that Fiji has a history of numerous contesting parties with different geographical focus.
In any case the Fiji Electoral Commission would first allocate the 21 List MPs to all the other deserving parties who qualify for a share of the national Parliament (under the reduced threshold of 2 per cent).
If then necessary, the FEC could approve a small number of “overhang” or “compensatory” seats for any deserving parties.
This process happens in many complex forms in electoral systems all over the world where proportionality is added on to local constituency representation (just google “overhangs in electoral systems”).
This can even happen in NZ’s MMP system which Nilesh Lal is extolling, where there are 48 List seats out of 120 (or 40 per cent to ensure proportionality after 72 MPs have been elected in constituencies.
In comparison, in our 2025 POLCS after 50 local MPs have been elected in constituencies, there will be an allocation of 21 List seats out of 71 (or 30 per cent) to encourage proportionality.
We remind Nilesh Lal to examine the Fiji election results for 1999, 2001 and 2006 and notice the large number of political parties (and Independents) and their differing support throughout Fiji.
Will the 2026 CRC Report be different?
By the end of August, the 2026 Constitution Review Commission will present its report to the President.
Given that it has also consulted widely throughout Fiji, we doubt if electoral recommendations be much different from that of the 2025 FELRC, certainly not when it comes to the public’s call for local representation and accountability of MPs!
We do understand and sympathise that Dialogue Fiji may simply not have the budget or the staff back-ups to consult widely as the 2025 FELRC and the 2026 CRC have had.
But it would do the reputation of Dialogue Fiji some good if its executive director read our numerous Reports and Annexes carefully and appreciated all the significant benefits that the 2025 POLCS promises, not offered by the current 2013 Electoral System (worth repeating):
l 50 locally accountable MPs
l 25 Reserved Seats for Women
l Small parties getting into Parliament with reduced 2 per cent threshold
l Independents getting into Parliament
On some common ground with Dialogue Fiji, the 2025 POLCS will also offer a reasonable degree of proportionality between qualifying parties (especially with the threshold reduced to 2 per cent).
Also on common ground with Dialogue Fiji, there would be no ethnic constituencies while all voters would be equal.
PROFESSOR WADAN NARSEY is a former Professor of Economics at The University of the South Pacific. DANIEL FATIAKI is a former Chief Justice of Fiji. The views expressed in this article are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.
