|
|
Back to Fiji Blogs home
|
Dr Steven Ratuva 's View |
The great leap forward: Will the multi-party cabinet work?
Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:03 pm
Apart from the coups of 1987 and 2000, the multi-party arrangement is probably one of the most significant political events in Fiji since independence in 1970 because it is the first time that the two major ethnically based political parties form a cabinet.
However, the idea is not new at all. In 1981 the Alliance Party under Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara suggested the concept of government of national unity but this was rejected by the National Federation Party, then the major Indo-Fijian political party. After the 1999 election, a coalition under the leadership of the Fiji Labour Party’s Mahendra Chaudhry was formed but the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) was kept out of the political equation and to some extent this may have contributed to the anti-government conspiracy and mobilization which eventually led to the coup in 2000. Again suggestions for the formation of a government of national unity by Labour surfaced after the 2001 election, particularly during the legal debates relating to the constitutional provisions of the multi-party cabinet.
This time around a multi-party arrangement is now in place and amidst the euphoria and high expectations, the questions that are worth asking are: Will it work? Is this for real? What are the future implications?
Reconfiguring the ethno-political mindset
One of the biggest psychological hurdles would be to change the mid-set of the political players. Over the years ethnic politics in Fiji had degenerated into a zero-sum game, characterized by ethnic competition over state power and winning at all cost. The state became the ultimate “trophy” to be won and “owned.” The use of ethnic mobilization to achieve this created an ethnically polarized political culture which drove the two ethnic groups towards divergent directions. Overcoming this political culture and associated mindset is indeed one of the biggest obstacles.
Changing one’s mindset over night is not easy especially when politicians and citizens generally have grown up with the thinking that ethnic separation is “natural” and perfectly legitimate and any other alternative would be deviation from the political norm. For politicians whose very survival depends on the deployment of the ethnic card to mobilize support and achieve political ambition, the change would be quite a struggle.
The first few months would be the most difficult. Those who are broad-minded enough would have no problem whatsoever in adapting while those committed to communalism would find the transformation a bit tough. However, the optimism is that human personality is susceptible to change given the right circumstances and inducement. Once politicians get used to the multi-party rhythm, there is bound to be gradual approval and eventual acceptance.
Dual loyalty
The other significant challenge is that of dual loyalty of the ministers. On one hand is loyalty to the party and on the other hand is loyalty to the government. This is fundamentally a situation of ideological contradiction. Given the ethnic nature of our political parties, party loyalty is a combination of narrow ethnic interest and individual power ambitions. It is divisive and adversarial and has the potential to derail the multi-party process.
This is in contrast to loyalty to the government which, at least theoretically, involves commitment to the national interest. But again the question is, to what extent can the majority Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) Party consolidate the support of the FLP cabinet members by ensuring that the “national interest” rather than the SDL interest reigns supreme? The solution to this lies in negotiation “in good faith” by both sides.
The SDL should not see the multiparty arrangement as an attempt at political assimilation and hegemony to weaken the FLP. At the same time the FLP should not see the multiparty cabinet as a way of appeasing and infiltrating the SDL ranks as a convenient way of “changing things from inside” for their own interests. Such conspiratorial thoughts by both sides no doubt abound and may surface into irreparable differences if they are not kept in check.
There should be consensus on what the intentions of the multiparty are and there should be reasonable and proper ground rules to keep the ministers on track. Through their own ministerial duties, the ministers would naturally come to terms with issues which are of national interest.
The parliamentary speech by Krisna Datt in response to the President’s speech provides a good starting point for this consensus. If Datt’s optimism and faith is replicated within the cabinet, there will no doubt be a new renaissance in politics in Fiji, a new dawn in consensual politics to eclipse the one dimensional and adversarial communalistic mode of politics.
Opposition
The issue of opposition is an interesting one, legally and politically. The new arrangement should usher in a new style of oppositional politics, different from the normal Westminister model regarding the constitution and role of the opposition parties.
The new arrangement should create two types of opposition in parliament. The first is the formal opposition in the form of the United People’s Party (interestingly, the Fijian translation of United People’s Party is Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewe ni Vanua-coincidence maybe?). The second is informal opposition through the use of backbenchers to provide effective political balance. This would mean breaking with party line solidarity and using individual politicians as a way of keeping the ministers in check. This is one way of making sure that opposition is not as ethnicized as before, yet remain effective.
Although formal opposition has been part of the democratic political process in Fiji, it has, over the years, degenerated into ethnic contestation and consequently became a barrier to unity. Parliamentary debates became a forum for ethnic hostility while economic, social and political issues of national interest were ethnicized beyond recognition. Opposition was no longer on the basis of clarifying the technicality of issues but a means of articulating ethnic agendas. Not only that. Oppositional politics became conspiratorial and extra-parliamentary and the coups of 1987 and 2000 were violent expressions of these.
In response to these, there has been a general yearning for unity and consensus as oppositional politics became divisive and destructive. The multiparty arrangement has brought about a sense of relief that divisive oppositional politics would be a thing of the past. But ironically some are still clamouring for the return to the past and the reinstatement of the divisive oppositional politics.
The great shift: Strengthening the middle ground
In ideological terms, the multiparty arrangement has shifted the once communally polarized politics towards the middle. Parties such as the national Alliance and NFP which claimed to have moderate ideology found themselves irrelevant as the middle ground was swept away from under their feet. It also meant that the more ethnically extreme elements within the SDL and FLP were significantly moderated.
However, perhaps the biggest threats to the multiparty arrangement are the extreme elements within the Fijian Nationalist camp who would see the new system as a “sell out” and also some within the FLP who now realize that their power to influence Indo-Fijian support has considerably withered away. The most which the Fijian nationalist critics would do is spend time articulating their views from the sideline while the FLP critics would use every technical trick available in the book to make the multiparty inoperable.
The shift to the middle ground also has the pleasant effect of moderating the once hostile relationship between the military and the SDL government. This is a significant development in as far as harmonizing the strained relations between the two groups and easing the tense security situation are concerned.
Future sustainability of the multiparty government
The multiparty arrangement will not “work” automatically. It has to be “made” to work. For this to happen, a number of important things should take place. Firstly, there has to be a general process of “give and take” between the major parties. Secondly, personal pride, ethnic agendas and narrow political interests must be subservient to the broader national interests. Thirdly, there should be workable guidelines as to the behaviour and activities of the cabinet members. Fourthly, the balance between party loyalty and national loyalty must be dealt with sensitively so that party loyalty does not override national commitment. Fifthly, there should be greater transparency in the cabinet process to allow broader participation in decision-making and policy matters by the public. For instance, as in South Africa, all government White Papers should be posted on the government website for people to make comments and provide ideas.
If the multiparty cabinet can last for six months, then there is no reason why it shouldn’t last for one year. If it lasts for one year then there is no reason why it shouldn’t last for five years. It will work if we make it work.
|
|
|
