AS Fiji approaches another general election, vanua (land) once again risks being reduced to tool for a campaign slogan.
Alongside race, it remains one of the most powerful tools of political mobilisation to secure support, often at the cost of deepening division. It is often used to secure party support usually at the cost of deepening division within iTaukei communities.
Like indigenous people everywhere, the vanua is considered as the heart of iTaukei existence, it holds the past, present and future. Narewa Village in Nadi, from where our land research is based, vanua tells a complex story of livelihood, identity, and political influence.
The village’s increasing reliance on leasing is gradually reshaping the relationship Narewa communities have with vanua.
Lease income provides real benefits such as supporting education, housing, and everyday needs which in turn has reframed land as an asset, valued for what it can generate rather than what it represents. For iTaukei communities, vanua is not simply an economic resource. It is central to identity, intergenerational responsibility and belonging. In Narewa, the common ownership land tenure model, in theory, ensures collective ownership and benefits to every member registered in the Vola ni Kawabula or VKB.
Together, the increasing reliance on leasing and collective ownership land tenure have created contradictory realities. Many landowners continue to uphold the belief that land is sacred and collectively held yet participate in arrangements that treat it as a commodity. This contradiction can be understood as a form of cognitive dissonance where cultural values and economic realities pull in different directions. Over time, repeated practices can reshape how land is understood across generations. As Aristotle reminds us, “we are what we repeatedly do.”
Fiji’s political history shows that such tensions are often amplified during elections. In the 1970s, Sakeasi Butadroka openly mobilised political support by framing indigenous land as under threat and used race-based narratives to rally voters. During Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s leadership, protection of iTaukei land remained central to political legitimacy. Similarly, the events of 1987 marked a turning point when Sitiveni Rabuka justified the coups partly on concerns over indigenous security and control. At the same time, leaders such as Jai Ram Reddy mobilised voters around a different land issue as tenure insecurity for Indo–Fijian farmers. Land, clearly, has never been neutral in Fiji’s politics.
More recently, land has been framed through the language of reform and modernisation. The Bainimarama government pursued policies aimed to make land more productive and accessible for economic development, just as Mahendra Chaudry did when he came into power in 2000. Yet for many iTaukei communities, a few reforms were viewed with concern. Measures such as the amendment to the iTaukei Land Trust Act (commonly referred to as Bill 17) and the Surfing Areas Decree were assumed as weakening customary authority and control over land and associated resources. Such perceptions matter they shape how trust in policy is formed at the community level.
In honouring its 2022 campaign promises, the Coalition Government removed the Bainimarama amendments in 2023 and reinstated the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC). The coalition also reinstated the chiefs’ shares, which had been abolished in 2010 under the Bainimarama regime, when lease income were equally distributed to all landowning under the Equal Distribution Policy.
In restoring the GCC, the coalition has not only revived an institution, but also reaffirmed its place of traditional authority in the affairs of State. For many iTaukei communities this revival is not simply nostalgic, but rather a deliberate move of restoring a voice that was removed from the talanoa of national decision-making and returning it to its rightful place among the vanua. For iTaukei, the reinstatement offered a renewed sense of hope, but more in aspiration than in practice.
In Narewa, these national debates are reflected in everyday realities. Leasing is often embraced as an economic opportunity, but it also introduces new pressures particularly around the distribution of lease income. While benefits are meant to be shared, lease distributions have often been uneven. Questions of entitlement, transparency, and fairness frequently arise, and disputes have strained relationships within landowning units.
When political parties frame land during campaigns as either needing “protection” or “modernisation,” they simplify a deeply complex issue. For iTaukei communities like Narewa, the challenge is not choosing one over the other but rather managing both. Livelihoods matter, but so does cultural continuity.
As Fiji heads to the polls, there is a need to move beyond the familiar patterns of using land and race for political gain.
History has shown the risks of doing so. Conversations around land during election campaigns must not ignore its foundational and cultural role of establishing social and community cohesion and identity. Land issues have too often drawn hollow promises from politicians which sadly vanish like mist once power is secured. Narewa has many such stories to tell.
The experience of Narewa strongly suggests that land leasing practices must be established in ways that sustain both livelihoods and connection to vanua. This requires stronger governance within landowning units, fairer and more transparent distribution systems, and political leadership that respects the deeper cultural meaning of land.
In an election year, this is a responsibility we should all take seriously.
DR TUI RAKUITA teaches at the School of Social Science, University of Otago.
DR SEVANAIA SAKAI teaches at the School of Agriculture, Geography, Oceans, and Natural Sciences, University of the South Pacific. The views expressed herein are the authors and not of this newspaper.
dr seva
