Diversity is defined by the Oxford English Reference Dictionary as "a different kind; a variety".

It is for me the collection of differences under one umbrella or together in one place.

That is the nature of our society. We recognise and acknowledge it at a certain level, but very few of us embrace it whether from fear, suspicion, indifference or apathy.

The process of integration whereby we engage more meaningfully despite our diversity is slow and has only begun over the last two decades.

The coups of 1987 and 2000 while posing threats to democracy and the rule of law in Fiji, have also generated profound reflection about the nature and future direction of our country.

Our multiculturalism is more a sentiment of the mind then the heart. It is a pleasing intellectual exercise to acknowledge the presence of different communities and religions in our midst.

However, that is not enough. All of us need to invest emotion in the concept. It is when we relate to it in that manner that we are able to implement it in more practical ways.

Otherwise we remain confined to our respective communities.

Why is it so difficult? Because we have all subconsciously grown up with the notion that our way, whether it is cultural, social, religious or political is better then anyone else's.

For that reason we are reluctant to find out more about the lives of the other communities who are our neighbours, but remain distant from us.

Differences do matter. It would be foolish to assert otherwise. They provide a basis for continuing divisions in our country.

Our history is perceived in parallel terms: where the various ethnic groups developed in isolation from each other until at least independence.

Subsequently, that thinking was carried through and has vestiges in the present.

This conditioning is present across the political spectrum. Fijian and IndoFijian leaders in particular often convey messages with a slightly different emphasis to their own communities in the vernacular.

What it encourages is ethnic solidarity and unity. While it may contribute to political stability in the short term, the larger process of nation building is rendered more difficult for the future.

Because we continue to move at different paces and in response to separate motivations.

The practical problem with appeals to ethnicity is that those who gain power or authority by that route are held hostage to that end.

It becomes problematical to broaden the appeal and representation of the Government, because the community which provided the support expects to be rewarded.

The room for manoeuvre is therefore limited. The result is that the pool of talent or resource from which Cabinet can be drawn is appreciably narrowed.

We face very serious economic, social and political problems. It is critical that we have the flexibility to draw from across the community to fill Cabinet positions.

I recognise political realities. But we cannot continue the present ways of governance if these challenges are to be effectively dealt with.

Identity is strongly felt, experienced and asserted across all the communities that comprise our nation.

Its roots lie in our past and we perpetuate it because we prefer what we know. The controversy about the term "Fijian", and allegations of identity theft levelled against those who would broaden its definition, is illustrative of this point.

It is a sentiment that needs to be respected. But it should not prevent us from exploring other avenues that affirm our common destiny.

The starting point is that this is our home and that we all belong here. Beyond our respective communities, there is a greater force that binds us together which is a sense of nationhood.

This is our country. We feel it keenly when we are away and diminish that awareness upon our return. Waisale Serevi and Vijay Singh provide wonderful role models for all of us.

As do Vilimaina Davu, Imrana Jalal, Nazhat Shameem, Sereana Qoro and Bernadette Rounds.

Fiji is marketed abroad largely in terms of the indigenous population. There is no doubting the powerful appeal that the friendliness of Fijians has for our visitors.

It is a quality that many have observed and commented on. The problem with this image is that it makes invisible the other groups who call Fiji home.

Our multiculturalism should be a strength that is openly celebrated. It has a relevant echo in the globalisation in which we are obliged to participate. India has become a global player.

Its middle classes have disposable income and are anxious to explore new experiences.

Why not the distant Pacific where some of their own people traveled several generations ago to make a new life for themselves?

The possibilities appear endless. We need not confine ourselves to one image of this country. It has many facets.

The most obvious sign of our intolerance as a society is our religious plurality and the obstacles this poses for many people of faith.

It is hardly a surprise because religion is about faith and is deeply-held. Where it assumes an ethnic hue as in Fijians and other non IndoFijians being largely Christian, and IndoFijians mostly Hindus and Muslims, the issues becomes complicated.

Our human prejudices overwhelm the universality of our religious teachings. We use it to denigrate and demean each other.

I have no problem with the various claims all religions make. It is when a particular truth or belief is asserted, to reinforce notions of superiority or holiness as against others, that one questions that approach.

Religion seeks obedience to a Divine will. It is voluntary inasmuch as belief is a matter of choice.

If that is so, the most effective form of persuasion is by example. Others see the transforming power of one's faith and seek it for themselves, os apposed to condemnation merely because one believes differently from another.

Many Christians have a profound unease about their relationships with people of other faiths given the absolutist claims of Christianity and its founder, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I appreciate their dilemma. However, our Lord is not served by distancing ourselves from others or from attacking them because they believe and act differently from us.

The way of the cross is love, forbearance, forgiveness, compassions and gentleness. Warfare and notions of confrontation are confined to the spiritual realm where prayer, fasting, meditation and healing are involved to combat evil as personified in Satan.

It is a quantum leap to apply these tactics to advocating a Christian State or to demonise other faiths.

The fall of humankind was the result of disobedience and the resulting freedom of choice God gave us. The redemption offered by Christ on the cross at Calvary is as unconditional as it is optional.

The consequences may be dire but that is an individual choice for each of us to make.

We need to remember that when we attempt to rationalize our religious inclination to discriminate.

The coups of 1987 and 2000 have had a lasting effect on the psyche of our nation. They contributed to the high levels of emigration we have sustained in nearly two decades.

Equally significantly, it has engendered a sense of indigenous affirmation that has been unsympathetic to the feelings of other communities among us.

Our Public Service is overwhelmingly Fijian at the middle and senior levels. Both the head of State and his deputy are Fijian.

Our military is almost all Fijian. I spoke earlier of the images marketed abroad by the tourism industry. Rugby union receives an inordinate amount of monies from the Government.

These are observations of the ways things are. To this, I can hear ripostes about the dearth of Fijians in the commercial sector. I do not deny that. It is a significant source of disquiet among Fijians.

However, the collective effect of the other developments is to encourage the thinking that the domination of Fijians is only right and natural. Is this not a Fijian country?

Is it not our birthright as its indigenous people? With respect, our rights are without prejudice to equal rights, fairness and natural justice. If not, it is little more than a different form of tyranny.

Some commentators consider unity and diversity mutually exclusive ideas.

Fiji is living proof of the relationship between the two, albeit an uneasy one. Our sense of nationhood is evolving slowly.

It is doing so alongside our ethnicity. It seems to me that we emphasise the latter when we wish to differentiate ourselves for a particular purpose.

Or to assert a claim to something over others. At the same time, belonging to one country and to each other becomes apparent when we celebrate specific sporting feats of excellence.

We are proud of our various ethnic groups when compared with the homogeneity of several other Pacific States.

Many of us genuinely appreciate the richness of our respective ethnic groups and the colour it brings to our lives.

There is no inherent contradiction in being a Fijian, IndoFijian, Rotuman, European, Part European, Pacific Islander and a Fiji citizen at the same time.

The latter encapsulates all the former categories. All those identities are open to each of us to explore by virtue of our common citizenship.

In the years since independence, there has been little attempt to either embrace or homogenize our diverse cultural and religious values. I think the reason is that it has been considered too difficult and sensitive an issue to handle.

The more recent emphasis on indigenous concerns has not been so much an attempt to impose Fijian values, as to reassure indigenous feelings of insecurity and victimhood.

This has been presented to us as Fijians recapturing their destiny. In the main, diversity has been left to find its own level.

While the Government of the immediate post independence era emphasised this aspect frequently, it was more rhetoric that a coordinated Governments initiative to promote the concept.

This may be too harsh an assessment. But I base this conclusion on the fact that post 1987 administrations altered their emphasis with ease.

Had there been a substantive programme and initiatives in place, the redirection may not have been implemented so seamlessly.

It would be relatively straightforward to heap responsibility for the lack of direction on the issue of diversity on those presently in power. However, it would not be fair.

Successive Governments have been reluctant to intervene more extensively in this respect.

Most have been content to mouth the rhetoric, but have felt unwilling, unable or inadequate in relation to doing more.

The crux of the problem, I believe, lies in the lack of a practical vision of what it takes to affirm and strengthen diversity in the context of uniting the nation.

The role of the Government is to take the lead in formulating policies as well as initiatives and strategies for implementing them.

This requires the education system to actively promote diversity and respect for difference. It obliges the State to reflect the same in its recruitment and human resources policies.

Moreover, it has to actively support the existence of these cultures. This can be done imaginatively through facilitative measures through schools and religious organisations as well as the careful deployment of resources.

The emphasis should be on inclusion. All these cultures are all part of the nation of Fiji. It is to her that they all owe their loyalty, commitment and love. Inclusion is not mooted for the sake of appearances.

It is to make all the constituent parts of this country feel both wanted and at home.

When this happens we can work together more productively for the common good, and the benefit of generations as yet unborn.

Too often when we are preoccupied with our ethnic perspectives, it is tempting to disregard others.

When we do that we harm the fabric of our society because it is made up of all of us.

That this is a common mindset for most people is indicative of the extent one needs to be reminded of the many and varied peoples who live in and call this place home.

The concept requires reinforcement and reaffirmation at all levels and strata of society. The discourse in this country is often conducted as if there are only two ethnic groupings here.

They are certainly the largest but they are not the only ones.

All Politicians champion diversity because no one wishes to be labelled as being either culturally insensitive or racist.

Because of its complexity, the approach has tended to be piece meal and isolated rather than an attempt to integrate and reflect it in overall government policy.

The affirmative action initiatives undertaken under successive Governments have concentrated the focus on indigenous concerns. Yet there is adequate scope to incorporate diversity and related objectives in these and other programmes.

These different interests require support and encouragement if they are to make a contribution to national development.

Some are fearful that this would promote the Balkanisation of our island nation.

It is a reasonable concern. However, diversity does not exist in isolation, but in the context of the many groups that comprise our country.

The concept of nationhood embraces us all. Our differences must not be allowed to overshadow that sense.

For too long we have left the issue of diversity to chance. It is to the credit of the various Governments we have had since independence that they have at least felt obliged to pay lip-service to the idea.

Even as they have pursued policies with a distinctly indigenous emphasis, there has been a need to make obligatory if somewhat empty gestures in that direction.

Fijians are generally a hospitable people. Even as we continue to assert indigenous rights over others, Christianity and notions of fair play bequeathed by the British constitute uncomfortable reminders to ourselves.

They raise searching questions about our proper responsibilities to the many communities who also call this country home. We intentionally obscure Christ's entreaty to love others as we do ourselves, while recognising reluctantly that we have no right to do so.

We have demonstrated the capacity to reciprocate respect and tolerance when shown to us. True, we have been open to manipulation, misrepresentations and exploitation.

We are not alone in this and are easily moved by small gestures of kindness or consideration.

All these aspects need to be remembered in tailoring policies and structures that encompass all of us.

Diversity is a strength rather than a weakness. We continue to participate in the life of our respective cultures because it defines and gives each of us meaning.

That they have persisted and survived despite the indifference of successive Governments is testament to their importance in our lives.

It has a bearing on how we relate our group identity to the national one.

Although integration remains work in progress, some lessons have been learned in this sojourn together.

We are honest about our differences. Some would say obsessed. There is a measure of respect for others.

We interact with each other passably well on a daily basis. The structure and degree of intervention needed to strengthen diversity in a society like ours requires a nationwide focus.

Civil society has a part to play, as have we all, but it is ultimately the State or rather the Government that must take the lead.

It is critical to the way in which these dual roles we have are balanced for the well-being of the Republic of the Fiji Islands and all its people.

Joni Madraiwiwi

Fijilive