|
|
Back to Fiji Blogs home
|
Steven Ratuva 's View |
Pre-empting the election results
Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:02 pm
The election is now underway and people are already speculating about the possible results. Political party candidates as expected are the most optimistic of their own victories and voters are caught up in a web of propaganda and counter-propaganda, rumours and counter rumours, allegations and counter allegations.
There have been logistical and administrative problems since polling began on Saturday 6 May. Some polling stations were not opened in time due to late ballot papers and the complex problem of wrong registration continues to plague the election. There are other allegations which have not been proven either way. While these may appear to be purely mechanical problems, the real issue is, to what extent do they impact on the results of the election?
In the absence of any conclusive evidence, it’s not really easy to answer this question. Nevertheless, what we are probably going to see after the election is a whole series of court appeals by losers claiming that their losses were due to inaccurate registration. The two major complaints regarding registration are firstly, people claiming that their names were not on the rolls although they were registered, and secondly those claiming that they were registered in the wrong constituencies. The cases could drag on for sometime before we could have the final results declared. But this is just part of the complex post-election scenario which we may face.
Post-election scenarios
Now that the preferences are known and the election is underway, a number of possible scenarios can be constructed.
The first scenario would be a possible SDL victory. The victory maybe a small one such as the 2001 election (37) and would need some independents and possibly the NFP to ensure a sustainable ruling majority. The problem with this scenario is that while the SDL may do well in the communal seats last won by the CAMV it may lose some open seats, especially in the highly contested seven urban open seats in the Suva-Nausori area. Given the unfavourable preferences given to SDL, the party really needs to win the first round of counting to get through. Otherwise it is going to falter in the 2nd and 3rd preference counts.
The second scenario is that Labour will possibly win but with a very slight majority. Labour will most probably win most of the Indian communal but like SDL will also be in some difficulty in the open seats, especially given the large number of independents contesting as well as the new found strength of the NFP. Like SDL it would need the support of other parties and in this case the United People’s Party and the National Alliance Party of Fiji and come independent politicians.
The third scenario is that there will be no outright winner to win 36 or more of the seats. This will force the two major parties, SDL and Labour, to rush around looking for alliances to form the next government, a situation similar to 1992 when there was no clear majority and after days of horse trading Chaudhry eventually supported Rabuka instead of Kamikamica. The problem with this kind of arrangement is that it is very unstable. Once someone moves away from the coalition, the government collapses. This is the typical PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu scenario. Because of its very slim majority, the Rabuka government lost a vote of confidence in 1994 and it collapsed.
The forth scenario is, because there will be no outright winners the two major political parties will be forced to cooperate and work together within the constitutional provision of a multi-party cabinet.
So far the two major political parties are only concerned about the first and second scenarios and have already made alliances towards that end. The third and forth scenarios are still considered remote and presumptions. However, the way things are going the third and forth scenarios are real possibilities and to this end, behind the scene negotiations should really start immediately after the polling even before the results are fully known. This will ensure that the country is not left in limbo for too long before a new government is formed otherwise some people might construe it as “a chaotic situation” and some may try to take advantage of it and do things which might lead to a “state of emergency” of sorts thus inviting the intervention of the security forces. We should not allow this situation to happen so we really need to sensibly plot out our post-election arrangements in good time.
Shift towards middle ground?
One of the factors which would make the formation of a multi-ethnic government much easier this time is what appears to be a growing shift towards the “middle ground” amidst the existing ethnic bipolar situation. There are four manifestations of this “shift.” Firstly is the increase in SDL support amongst Indo-Fijians, although not enough to enable SDL to win an Indian communal seat. SDL’s Indo-Fijian support is largely concentrated in the urban centers and the business community, disgruntled middle and professional class individuals and parts of the Muslim community. This shift is partly triggered by dissatisfaction with the Labour leadership.
Secondly is the increase in Fijian support for Labour by those dissatisfied with SDL rule, although not significant enough to enable Labour to win a Fijian communal seat. Fijian support for Labour has always been minimal, unlike the 1980s after it was formed, and Labour needs it to justify its claim to being a multi-ethnic party.
Thirdly is the growth in popularity of the National Federation Party, National Alliance Party and independent candidates. The possible swing in Indo-Fijian and indigenous Fijian votes towards these groups may suggest a threat to political monopoly by both the SDL and Labour. However, at one level the NFP and Alliance are seen as “new” parties with fresh ideas and at another level they are seen as old “recycled” parties with irrelevant political ideologies. These are the biggest challenges they currently confront.
Possible legal challenges
Another possible post-election scenario would be the attempt to legally invalidate the whole election by candidates or parties who feel disadvantaged by the election process, especially in relation to issues of missing names and wrong registration amongst others. This would be a very serious matter indeed. The success of this case would depend very much on how the courts judge on the extent and degree of the alleged anomalies.
To invalidate the whole election, a remote possibility, would not be a very politically logical decision for the country because, apart from the heavy financial costs and complex logistics, it has the potential to spawn grievances by those opposed to the ruling. The best way forward is to put an investigation commission together to quickly collect and look into all the complaints to determine whether they were substantive enough to influence the results. Marginal cases should be dismissed and in serious cases, the most that can be done is to have election re-run in the constituencies in question.
While we are currently busy with the election, it would also be prudent to start thinking of the post-election arrangements. Election is not an end in itself as some of us tend to believe but a means towards future stable governance for the country. After polling finishes on Saturday 13, let’s quickly forget about the election and the differences it has spawned and let’s start thinking and working towards our post-election future.
|
|
|
